- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Minutes Council Meeting Singapore
by Kristina Nordstrom March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Dear all, Please find the minutes from the Council meeting in Singapore on 11 February attached and let me know before 9 March if you wish to make any amendments. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Dial in details Webinar on Incident Response Email List 11 March 08:00 / 20:00 UTC
by Kristina Nordstrom March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear all, Following Gabi's email regarding a Webinar on the Incident Response email list ("TLD-OPS") on 11 March 08:00 and 20:00 UTC, please find the dial in details below: Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnso2015 Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room so you will be able to participate using your computer mic and speakers. Please let me know if you need dial out assistance. You do not need to RSVP, just join at the time most suitable for you! Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] IAP DT Template - ccTLD list only
by Demi Getschko March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Patricio, my understanding (vis-a-vis with what GAC and ICANN was doing since 2000) is that when IANA "steps in" is just to provide valuable information for a fair proceedings... This information and positioning helps and informs the process to come to a conclusion... I really think it would be important for the easy transition not to overload IANA with police or deciding topics - keeping IANA just as an operational body... But may be I'm missing something best demi PS. RFC1591 is older than ICANN... With ICANN's inception we assumed in some way that the final decision about redelegations, originally in IANA, transited to ICANN, keeping IANA "funcion" just operational and informative... On 03/02/2015 11:09 PM, Patricio Poblete wrote: > I agree that the task of designing an appropriate appeals mechanism > for ccTLD managers that have been subject to a revocation should be > handled through a PDP in an appropriate time frame. > > However, I cannot agree with Demi that IANA has no role in > redelegations (except implementing what has been decided elsewhere). > For instance, RFC1591 says > > The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement > among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things > unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the > designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA > step in. > > So, the IANA has the power to "step in" in cases of "substantial > mis-behavior". The FOI report says > > 4.2. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to permit the IANA Operator to > revoke a ccTLD delegation in appropriate circumstances where the > manager has substantially misbehaved (section 3.4 of RFC1591). > > 4.3. The FOIWG interprets “misbehaviour” (section 3.4 of RFC1591) > in this context to refer to conduct involving the failure of a > manager to (i) carry out the necessary responsibilities of that > role, or (ii) carry out those responsibilities in the manner > required by RFC1591. > > 4.4. The FOIWG interprets substantial misbehaviour (section 3.4 of > RFC1591) to involve misbehaviour (as defined above) that is either > egregious or persistent and may include performing the necessary > responsibilities of a manager in a manner that imposes serious > harm or has a substantial adverse impact on the Internet community > by posing a threat to the stability and security of the DNS. > > 4.5. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to limit the IANA Operator’s > authority to step-in to situations where substantial misbehaviour > by the ccTLD manager (a) poses a risk to the security and > stability of the DNS or (b) involves the manager's failure, after > notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, to perform the > objective requirements (i.e., to be on the Internet, maintain IP > and email connectivity, identify a technical contact and to > identify an in-country administrative contact). > > 4.6. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to mean that the IANA Operator > should not step in regarding issues of equity, justice, honesty, > or – except insofar as it compromises the stability and security > of the DNS – competency, and that such issues would be better > resolved locally. > > > This is the FOI WG's interpretation of current policy. Are we going to > change it as part of the stewardship transition process? > > Patricio > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Demi Getschko <demi(a)nic.br > <mailto:demi@nic.br>> wrote: > > I think that the issue of delegations and redelegations is not > related to IANA context. IANA just have to implement, in a right > way, what it is decided in other police arenas... Better not to > mix this issue with IANA oversight transition, in my view... > Best > demi > > > On 03/02/2015 07:34 PM, Keith Davidson wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would have thought the appropriate CWG action for this would > be to recognise that RFC1591 recommends an appeals mechanism > for delegations and redelegations, as highlighted by the FOI > final report, and then call on the ccNSO and the ccTLD > community to address this issue within a reasonable timeframe, > recognising there is insufficient time to build an appropriate > mechanism prior to the IANA transition. > > To me, it is a waste of time and energy, as well as being out > of scope, for the CWG to be addressing this issue. As ICANN > contracted parties, the gTLD community is far removed from the > issues surrounding RFC1591 and delegations and redelegations > of ccTLDs. There is no commonality, and ccTLD delegations and > redelegations is the sole property of the ccTLD community to > resolve. > > Cheers > > Keith > > On 3/03/2015 10:41 a.m., Chris Disspain wrote: > > Jay, All, > > Just for clarity, I am not saying that there shouldn't be > a mechanism. Indeed as a member of the FoI WG I agreed > with the report recommending that there should. > > My point is simply that work on such a mechanism is for > the ccTLDs to undertake and not within the remit of the > CWG and not something that must be done prior to > transition since such a mechanism, would need to be > created within a PDP. Please tell me if that is wrong > headed of me. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > .au Domain Administration Ltd > T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 > 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> > 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 > > Important Notice - This email may contain information > which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, > and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. > If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have > received this email by mistake, please notify the sender > and delete this message immediately. Please consider the > environment before printing this email. > > On 3 Mar 2015, at 08:01 , Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz > <mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz>> wrote: > > Eberhard > > It would be very helpful if we could separate out the > two different points you are making as they are > getting confused. > > Your first point, that only the ccTLD manager should > have the ability to object/appeal/etc is well > understood and there is no consensus for anything > different from that. Let's keep that separate from > the second point. > > Your second point that you don't want an independent > appeal mechanism but would rather have a mechanism to > fix the board is surprising. Weren't you a member and > active participant in the FOI WG that produced the > report that Patricio quoted? > > 4.8. Note: The FOIWG believes it is consistent > with RFC1591 (section 3.4) and the duty to act fairly > to recognize the manager has the right to appeal a > notice of revocation by the IANA Operator to an > independent body. > > Have you now changed your mind? > > best > Jay > > On 3/03/2015, at 9:54 am, Dr Eberhard W Lisse > <el(a)lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: > > Jay, > > you might want to read up on what a tort is. > > But, the point I have been trying to make in > Singapore is still pertinent, if something is > wrong with the Board, we need to fix the Board not > add more layers which later will need fixing. > > We need to go much deeper than that, we need to > figure out what a ccTLD is and what the relation > of a ccTLD manager to the IANA Function Manager is. > > Acknowledging that an appeal mechanism of any sort > has input on a ccTLD would be contrary to my position. > > With regards to what is wrong with the Board, > interesting what the Malaysians say now about the > .ML repatriation from in-country to abroad... > > There can be 252 ccTLD Managers screaming, raving > and ranting, about the 253rd but it doesn't > matter, only what the 253rd (incumbent) manager > says is relevant for that ccTLD. > > el > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > > -- > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > NZRS Ltd > desk: +64 4 931 6977 <tel:%2B64%204%20931%206977> > mobile: +64 21 678840 <tel:%2B64%2021%20678840> > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley> > > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > 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

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION
by Chris Disspain March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Allan, > So, overall, the objective with the proposed DT is to determine whether there is any form of consensus in the ccTLD community for an appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the limited sense described above. This will most likely include undertaking another survey of the broad ccTLD community at some point. It goes without saying, that if there is no consensus then there would be no basis on which to make any recommendations to the CWG. I invite you to join the DT to help us bring some closure to this issue. I can only try to be clearer. Firstly an IAP to deal with escalated disputes about IANA agreed service levels or performance is absolutely necessary and if that is intended to be the work of this design team then I shall be delighted to assist in any way I can. However, the proposed name of this team and the detailed description indicate that it is to do work on an appeals mechanism for ccTLd delegations and re-delegations and not on the other matters. There may well be consensus amongst ccTLDs that there needs to be some from of appeals process in respect to delegation and re-delegation. That is not the point. The point is that it is not within the remit of the CWG to deal with the issue. Nor is it ‘necessary’ for the issue to be dealt with prior to or as part of stewardship transition. The creation of an oversight or appeals mechanism regarding delegation and re-delegation is contemplated in RFC 1591 and ‘recommended’ in the Framework of Interpretation. The discussion around creation of any such mechanism and an actual decision to create such a mechanism sits fairly and squarely under the banner of policy and therefore can only be dealt with pursuant to the ccNSOs policy development processes. Discussions on this matter would need to be held by a ccTLD group that involves the GAC. The scope of those discussions would need to be carefully crafted to avoid falling foul of RFC 1591, the Framework of Interpretation and the GAC principles. It is an extraordinarily delicate subject that will take many many months to navigate to the satisfaction of the ccTLD community and governments. The ccNSO through its Council has accepted the report of the FoI WG and it will shortly be sending it to the ICANN Board. The next step is in the hands of the ccNSO. So, in summary, my problem is not with the principle of a delegation.re-delegation appeals mechanism. My problem is that the process for dealing with the discussion about it and then deciding to create it is a POLICY process and is in any event specifically excluded from the scope of the CWG by its charter. If I have misunderstood the intentions of this design team proposal or misinterpreted you in any way, I apologise in advance. 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 Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 3 Mar 2015, at 05:31 , Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> wrote: > Chris – thanks for your comment on this proposed Design Team. Firstly, as the proposed leader of this DT, let me assure you that naming policy is not within the scope of our work and that I have no intention of letting our work veer into the area of policy for ccTLD delegations and redelegations. This is considered to be within the scope of the CWG. According to the charter, Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), is properly within the scope of this working group. > > The idea of a ccTLD specific appeal mechanism is not a new one. The possible need for an appeal mechanism was included in the CWG’s December proposal wherein it said “All decisions and actions (including deliberate inaction) of the IANA Functions Operator that affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database”. That paper included as an example “Disputes over the consistency of ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions with accepted policy”. Further, the CWG RFP 3 group concluded that it should be up to the ccTLD representatives on the CWG to come up with a proposal, if this is needed. So, the question is not whether we should be discussing this issue, but rather whether there is enough consensus in the ccTLD community to proceed, or, if not, to discard the ideas. > > The CCWG has taken up the general issue of ‘appeals and redress’ but has decided to exclude ccTLD delegations and redlegations from their work. We had a discussion of this at the ccNSO meeting in Singapore on this issue but it was inconclusive. The survey that the CWG did of its own members and participants in January did provide some insight on this issue. Here are some pertinent excerpts from that survey: > > ▪ The grounds for an appeal should be limited to whether or not relevant policy was followed (Agree 95%, Disagree 5% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ The appeals process should only challenge whether established policies have been properly applied or adhered to by the IANA Functions Operator. It should not evaluate the merits of such policies (Agree 84%, Disagree 16% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ All decisions and actions of the IANA Functions Operator that affect third parties and impact the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database should be subject to an independent appeals process (Agree 71%, Disagree 29%). > ▪ ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy (Agree 97%, Disagree 3% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and redelegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy, even if the operator is not a party involved in the delegation or redelegation (Agree 54%, Disagree 46% - Split). > ▪ Governments should have standing to appeal any ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws (Agree 60%, Disagree 40%). > ▪ Governments should have standing to appeal ccTLD delegation or re-delegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws only where that country`s ccTLD is involved (Agree 75%, Disagree 25%). Note: many “Is Acceptable” and “No Response” answers, so this is not classified as a “major agreement.” > > You can see that the respondents to this survey strongly agreed with the need for an appeal mechanism but this level of consensus fell sharply when comment of the details of the mechanism were sought. However, the ccTLD participation in the survey was limited as it was restricted to the CWG itself. (There are 5 ccTLD ‘members’ and another 15 ‘participants’, on the CWG). I do not know what the breakout of the above answers was for representatives of the ccTLD community. > > When the ccNSO first discussed this issue in Los Angeles there was virtual unanimity of the need for ‘an appeal mechanism’ (Eberhard, I have noted both your disagreement in Los Angeles and on this list). The survey of just ccTLDs that’s was taken last fall found that 94% of respondents agreed that: “If the IANA operator does not perform well or abuses its position the affected ccTLD should have the opportunity to (have access to) an independent and binding appeal process.” > > So, overall, the objective with the proposed DT is to determine whether there is any form of consensus in the ccTLD community for an appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the limited sense described above. This will most likely include undertaking another survey of the broad ccTLD community at some point. It goes without saying, that if there is no consensus then there would be no basis on which to make any recommendations to the CWG. I invite you to join the DT to help us bring some closure to this issue. > > > Allan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain > Sent: March-02-15 7:26 AM > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Cc: ccNSO Members; ccNSO Council; cctldworld(a)icann.org; ccTLD Community List > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION > Importance: High > > All, > > The below is extracted from the IAP Appeals mechanism document: > > On January 30th CWG RFP3 reviewed a detailed document (available here) summarizing the status of the IAP proposal and information flowing from the survey. During the RFP3 discussion, it was noted that the IAP is in response to a request from ccTLDs. RFP3 concluded with the following ‘Request/Action:” “ccTLD members and participants in CWG to come up with a consistent proposal on IAP” (see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 > > Later that day, January 30, the CCWG of Accountability sent a letter to the CWG indicating that it has begun to elaborate is own work and that it will include consideration of binding redress mechanisms. It has subsequently established an ‘Appeals and Redress’ work stream. In their January 30th letter, the CCWG also said that it has no intention to give an accountability mechanism decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs. > > In light of this, it is proposed that a Design Team consider the question of the potential need for a ccTLD delegation and redelegation appeal mechanism and the potential parameters of this. > > It is proposed that the Design team be made up of two to three ccTLD representatives and one or two GAC representatives. The DT will investigate the potential to include an expert that may have been identified to work with the CCWG on Accountability. > > > > On behalf of auDA, the ccTLD manager for .au I formally object to the terms of this design team which are specifically excluded from the charter of the CWG. Under the heading ‘Scope’ the charter states 'Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG” (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter) > > Any work on matters relating to delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs is a matter for the ccTLD community. > > > > 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 > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > On 2 Mar 2015, at 07:17 , Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> On behalf of Allan MacGillivray, please find attached the completed template for the Independent Appeals Panel for ccTLD delegations / redelegations. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> <Design Team - IAP - 1 March >> 2015.docx>_______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

2 1

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION
by Chris Disspain March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Allan, I have no problem with the CWG design team considering, in principle, whether there should or should not be a mechanism for assessing that a del/re-del decision has been made in accordance with policy (I wouldn’t call it an appeals mechanism but that is semantics). My concern was that the design team would itself be designing such a mechanism and putting it forward as part of its transition proposal. I understand that this is not the case and on that basis will be happy to work with you and others in the design team. I will also suggest some amendments to the template so that it clearly reflects the work that the team is intending to do. Does that put us both on the same page? 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 Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 3 Mar 2015, at 09:06 , Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> wrote: > Chris – thank you for getting so quickly to the core of the issue. You said: > > So, in summary, my problem is not with the principle of a delegation.re-delegation appeals mechanism. My problem is that the process for dealing with the discussion about it and then deciding to create it is a POLICY process and is in any event specifically excluded from the scope of the CWG by its charter. > > I guess this turns on what is ‘policy’ and what should be the process for determining it. Notwithstanding how one interprets the scope of the CWG’s mandate, which the ccNSO Council approved in September, at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October, the ccNSO community indicated it wanted ‘a binding appeal mechanism’ without reference to what that would be. The CWG’s December 1 proposal included a mechanism that specifically referenced ccTLD delegations. There were no objections at that time that such an IAP would be out of scope of the CWG. The limited subsequent discussions, primarily within the CWG’s survey, indicated that while there might be support for such a mechanism, there was no consensus on some aspects of it. The CWG itself is waiting for the ccTLD community to indicate its intentions. > > So, many in the ccTLD community have implicitly agreed with having the CWG look at this issue but you feel that it is not within the CWG’s mandate. Having come this far, what would you suggest? That a decision be made to immediately cease any consideration of this issue. If so, how would you propose that such a decision be taken given? I am proposing to take a further step of seeking the views of the broader ccTLD community on this subject. I can’t see how that would be counterproductive. > > > Allan > > > From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] > Sent: March-02-15 4:36 PM > To: Allan MacGillivray > Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; ccNSO Members; ccNSO Council; cctldworld(a)icann.org; ccTLD Community List > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION > > Allan, > > So, overall, the objective with the proposed DT is to determine whether there is any form of consensus in the ccTLD community for an appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the limited sense described above. This will most likely include undertaking another survey of the broad ccTLD community at some point. It goes without saying, that if there is no consensus then there would be no basis on which to make any recommendations to the CWG. I invite you to join the DT to help us bring some closure to this issue. > > I can only try to be clearer. > > Firstly an IAP to deal with escalated disputes about IANA agreed service levels or performance is absolutely necessary and if that is intended to be the work of this design team then I shall be delighted to assist in any way I can. However, the proposed name of this team and the detailed description indicate that it is to do work on an appeals mechanism for ccTLd delegations and re-delegations and not on the other matters. > > There may well be consensus amongst ccTLDs that there needs to be some from of appeals process in respect to delegation and re-delegation. That is not the point. The point is that it is not within the remit of the CWG to deal with the issue. Nor is it ‘necessary’ for the issue to be dealt with prior to or as part of stewardship transition. > > The creation of an oversight or appeals mechanism regarding delegation and re-delegation is contemplated in RFC 1591 and ‘recommended’ in the Framework of Interpretation. The discussion around creation of any such mechanism and an actual decision to create such a mechanism sits fairly and squarely under the banner of policy and therefore can only be dealt with pursuant to the ccNSOs policy development processes. Discussions on this matter would need to be held by a ccTLD group that involves the GAC. The scope of those discussions would need to be carefully crafted to avoid falling foul of RFC 1591, the Framework of Interpretation and the GAC principles. It is an extraordinarily delicate subject that will take many many months to navigate to the satisfaction of the ccTLD community and governments. > > The ccNSO through its Council has accepted the report of the FoI WG and it will shortly be sending it to the ICANN Board. The next step is in the hands of the ccNSO. > > So, in summary, my problem is not with the principle of a delegation.re-delegation appeals mechanism. My problem is that the process for dealing with the discussion about it and then deciding to create it is a POLICY process and is in any event specifically excluded from the scope of the CWG by its charter. > > If I have misunderstood the intentions of this design team proposal or misinterpreted you in any way, I apologise in advance. > > 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 > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > On 3 Mar 2015, at 05:31 , Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> wrote: > > > Chris – thanks for your comment on this proposed Design Team. Firstly, as the proposed leader of this DT, let me assure you that naming policy is not within the scope of our work and that I have no intention of letting our work veer into the area of policy for ccTLD delegations and redelegations. This is considered to be within the scope of the CWG. According to the charter, Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), is properly within the scope of this working group. > > The idea of a ccTLD specific appeal mechanism is not a new one. The possible need for an appeal mechanism was included in the CWG’s December proposal wherein it said “All decisions and actions (including deliberate inaction) of the IANA Functions Operator that affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database”. That paper included as an example “Disputes over the consistency of ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions with accepted policy”. Further, the CWG RFP 3 group concluded that it should be up to the ccTLD representatives on the CWG to come up with a proposal, if this is needed. So, the question is not whether we should be discussing this issue, but rather whether there is enough consensus in the ccTLD community to proceed, or, if not, to discard the ideas. > > The CCWG has taken up the general issue of ‘appeals and redress’ but has decided to exclude ccTLD delegations and redlegations from their work. We had a discussion of this at the ccNSO meeting in Singapore on this issue but it was inconclusive. The survey that the CWG did of its own members and participants in January did provide some insight on this issue. Here are some pertinent excerpts from that survey: > > ▪ The grounds for an appeal should be limited to whether or not relevant policy was followed (Agree 95%, Disagree 5% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ The appeals process should only challenge whether established policies have been properly applied or adhered to by the IANA Functions Operator. It should not evaluate the merits of such policies (Agree 84%, Disagree 16% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ All decisions and actions of the IANA Functions Operator that affect third parties and impact the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database should be subject to an independent appeals process (Agree 71%, Disagree 29%). > ▪ ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy (Agree 97%, Disagree 3% - STRONG AGREEMENT). > ▪ ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and redelegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy, even if the operator is not a party involved in the delegation or redelegation (Agree 54%, Disagree 46% - Split). > ▪ Governments should have standing to appeal any ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws (Agree 60%, Disagree 40%). > ▪ Governments should have standing to appeal ccTLD delegation or re-delegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws only where that country`s ccTLD is involved (Agree 75%, Disagree 25%). Note: many “Is Acceptable” and “No Response” answers, so this is not classified as a “major agreement.” > > You can see that the respondents to this survey strongly agreed with the need for an appeal mechanism but this level of consensus fell sharply when comment of the details of the mechanism were sought. However, the ccTLD participation in the survey was limited as it was restricted to the CWG itself. (There are 5 ccTLD ‘members’ and another 15 ‘participants’, on the CWG). I do not know what the breakout of the above answers was for representatives of the ccTLD community. > > When the ccNSO first discussed this issue in Los Angeles there was virtual unanimity of the need for ‘an appeal mechanism’ (Eberhard, I have noted both your disagreement in Los Angeles and on this list). The survey of just ccTLDs that’s was taken last fall found that 94% of respondents agreed that: “If the IANA operator does not perform well or abuses its position the affected ccTLD should have the opportunity to (have access to) an independent and binding appeal process.” > > So, overall, the objective with the proposed DT is to determine whether there is any form of consensus in the ccTLD community for an appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the limited sense described above. This will most likely include undertaking another survey of the broad ccTLD community at some point. It goes without saying, that if there is no consensus then there would be no basis on which to make any recommendations to the CWG. I invite you to join the DT to help us bring some closure to this issue. > > > Allan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain > Sent: March-02-15 7:26 AM > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Cc: ccNSO Members; ccNSO Council; cctldworld(a)icann.org; ccTLD Community List > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION > Importance: High > > All, > > The below is extracted from the IAP Appeals mechanism document: > > On January 30th CWG RFP3 reviewed a detailed document (available here) summarizing the status of the IAP proposal and information flowing from the survey. During the RFP3 discussion, it was noted that the IAP is in response to a request from ccTLDs. RFP3 concluded with the following ‘Request/Action:” “ccTLD members and participants in CWG to come up with a consistent proposal on IAP” (seehttps://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 > > Later that day, January 30, the CCWG of Accountability sent a letter to the CWG indicating that it has begun to elaborate is own work and that it will include consideration of binding redress mechanisms. It has subsequently established an ‘Appeals and Redress’ work stream. In their January 30th letter, the CCWG also said that it has no intention to give an accountability mechanism decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs. > > In light of this, it is proposed that a Design Team consider the question of the potential need for a ccTLD delegation and redelegation appeal mechanism and the potential parameters of this. > > It is proposed that the Design team be made up of two to three ccTLD representatives and one or two GAC representatives. The DT will investigate the potential to include an expert that may have been identified to work with the CCWG on Accountability. > > > > On behalf of auDA, the ccTLD manager for .au I formally object to the terms of this design team which are specifically excluded from the charter of the CWG. Under the heading ‘Scope’ the charter states 'Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG” (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter) > > Any work on matters relating to delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs is a matter for the ccTLD community. > > > > 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 > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > On 2 Mar 2015, at 07:17 , Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > On behalf of Allan MacGillivray, please find attached the completed template for the Independent Appeals Panel for ccTLD delegations / redelegations. > > Best regards, > > Marika > <Design Team - IAP - 1 March > 2015.docx>_______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

1 0

IAP DT Template - ccTLD list only
by Chris Disspain March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Jay, All, Just for clarity, I am not saying that there shouldn't be a mechanism. Indeed as a member of the FoI WG I agreed with the report recommending that there should. My point is simply that work on such a mechanism is for the ccTLDs to undertake and not within the remit of the CWG and not something that must be done prior to transition since such a mechanism, would need to be created within a PDP. Please tell me if that is wrong headed of me. 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 Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 3 Mar 2015, at 08:01 , Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz> wrote: > Eberhard > > It would be very helpful if we could separate out the two different points you are making as they are getting confused. > > Your first point, that only the ccTLD manager should have the ability to object/appeal/etc is well understood and there is no consensus for anything different from that. Let's keep that separate from the second point. > > Your second point that you don't want an independent appeal mechanism but would rather have a mechanism to fix the board is surprising. Weren't you a member and active participant in the FOI WG that produced the report that Patricio quoted? > > 4.8. Note: The FOIWG believes it is consistent with RFC1591 (section 3.4) and the duty to act fairly to recognize the manager has the right to appeal a notice of revocation by the IANA Operator to an independent body. > > Have you now changed your mind? > > best > Jay > >> On 3/03/2015, at 9:54 am, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: >> >> Jay, >> >> you might want to read up on what a tort is. >> >> But, the point I have been trying to make in Singapore is still pertinent, if something is wrong with the Board, we need to fix the Board not add more layers which later will need fixing. >> >> We need to go much deeper than that, we need to figure out what a ccTLD is and what the relation of a ccTLD manager to the IANA Function Manager is. >> >> Acknowledging that an appeal mechanism of any sort has input on a ccTLD would be contrary to my position. >> >> With regards to what is wrong with the Board, interesting what the Malaysians say now about the .ML repatriation from in-country to abroad... >> >> There can be 252 ccTLD Managers screaming, raving and ranting, about the 253rd but it doesn't matter, only what the 253rd (incumbent) manager says is relevant for that ccTLD. >> >> el >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> > -- > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > NZRS Ltd > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley >

3 2

ccNSO Activity Summary February 2015
by Kristina Nordstrom March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

ccNSO Activity Summary February 2015 ccNSO Related Singapore Meeting Output: http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/singapore52/transcripts.htm (Audio & Transcripts) http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/singapore52/workshop.htm (Tech Day) http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/singapore52/presentations.htm (Presentations) Other Working/Study Group Output: 26 February - Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Telephone Conference Transcript<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/transcript-cwg-iana-26feb15-en.pdf> 24 February - Secure Email Communication for ccTLD Incident Response Working Group Telephone Conference Notes<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/notes-secir-24feb15-en.pdf> 19 February - Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Telephone Conference Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52889142/Transcript%20CWG%…> Recordings of various Working Group Meetings can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar ccNSO Council Output: Latest ccNSO Council Minutes: ccNSO Council Minutes 22 January<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/46815> ccNSO Council preparation material and output can be found here http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/minutes.htm ccNSO Council Decisions on Requests for input: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm ccNSO Council Decisions and Resolutions: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions.htm ccNSO Membership: 26 February - .GD (Grenada) and .SC (Seychelles) Join as Newest Members of the ccNSO<http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26feb15-en.htm> 11 February - .VG (British Virgin Islands) Joins as Newest Member of the ccNSO<http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11feb15-en.htm> Links and Announcements regarding the IANA Stewardship Transfer and ICANN's Accountability Process: 26 February - ICANN update on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Processes (part of bi-weekly updates): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-02-2… 26 February - ICANN webinar on the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability with focus on the Middle East region, 5th March at 12.00 UTC: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-25-en 24 February - ICANN Updates Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-20-en 13 February - ICANN Board statement on Sending IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Proposals to NTIA: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en 13 February - Co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions Statement on the ICANN 52 Meeting: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en 4 February - CWG Discussion Document<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404> 2 February - Public Comments to the CWG Initial Proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> Other Announcements: 23 February - ccNSO Travel Funding Open for Buenos Aires Applications<http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-23feb15-en.htm> (Open until 6 March) 19 February - ccNSO Members Meeting Evaluation Singapore 10-11 February 2015<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/46805> 12 February - https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMMU NIQUE_FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423679058420&api=v2 11 February - ccNSO Council Resolution Endorsing the FoI Final Report and Recommendations<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-resolutions-11feb15-en.pdf> 3 February - Comments to Los Angeles Survey Feedback from the ccNSO Meetings Programme Working Group<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/46780>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IAP DT Template - FORMAL OBJECTION
by Chris Disspain March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, The below is extracted from the IAP Appeals mechanism document: On January 30th CWG RFP3 reviewed a detailed document (available here) summarizing the status of the IAP proposal and information flowing from the survey. During the RFP3 discussion, it was noted that the IAP is in response to a request from ccTLDs. RFP3 concluded with the following ‘Request/Action:” “ccTLD members and participants in CWG to come up with a consistent proposal on IAP” (see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 Later that day, January 30, the CCWG of Accountability sent a letter to the CWG indicating that it has begun to elaborate is own work and that it will include consideration of binding redress mechanisms. It has subsequently established an ‘Appeals and Redress’ work stream. In their January 30th letter, the CCWG also said that it has no intention to give an accountability mechanism decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs. In light of this, it is proposed that a Design Team consider the question of the potential need for a ccTLD delegation and redelegation appeal mechanism and the potential parameters of this. It is proposed that the Design team be made up of two to three ccTLD representatives and one or two GAC representatives. The DT will investigate the potential to include an expert that may have been identified to work with the CCWG on Accountability. On behalf of auDA, the ccTLD manager for .au I formally object to the terms of this design team which are specifically excluded from the charter of the CWG. Under the heading ‘Scope’ the charter states 'Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG” (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter) Any work on matters relating to delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs is a matter for the ccTLD community. 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 Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 2 Mar 2015, at 07:17 , Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > On behalf of Allan MacGillivray, please find attached the completed template for the Independent Appeals Panel for ccTLD delegations / redelegations. > > Best regards, > > Marika > <Design Team - IAP - 1 March 2015.docx>_______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Summary SECIR Conference Call 24 February 2015
by Gabriella Schittek March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Below is a summary last week's SECIR WG call, forwarded on behalf of the SECIR WG Chair Cristian Hesselman. == Summary SECIR Conference Call #11 The ccNSO working group ³Secure Email Communication for cccTLD Incident Response² (SECIR) held its eleventh conference call on Tue Feb 24. We had a somewhat longer conference call than usual in which we discussed the following topics: (1) TLD-OPS status. The list of ccTLDs that have subscribed to the TLD-OPS list is growing slowly, but steadily. We currently have 29 ccTLDs on the list. The ccNSO Secretariat will continue to invite ccTLDs in the weeks ahead and the WG therefore requests all IANA Admin Contacts to regularly check their admin email address. (2) TLD-OPS subscription procedure. We decided to slightly update the part of the TLD-OPS subscription procedure that IANA Admin Contacts need to go through. The reason is that the ccNSO Secretariat reported that ccTLDs often cannot send emails from the email address they use for their IANA Admin Contact because the address is an alias or forwarding address. This makes the subscription procedure for such ccTLDs less lightweight than we intended and also introduces an additional workload for the ccNSO Secretariat. In the updated procedure, IANA Admin Contacts continue to receive an email from the ccNSO Secretariat that invites them to join the TLD-OPS list and that requests them to send back the contact info of their ccTLD¹s security and stability staff. The difference with the old procedure is that IANA Admin Contacts may now respond from a personal email address, but in this case must copy (i.e., CC) their IANA admin email address. IANA Admin Contacts should, however, preferably respond from their admin email account if this is possible. The goal of the TLD-OPS subscription procedure is to ensure that only people who are responsible for the overall security and stability of their ccTLD and who have been authenticated as such by their IANA Admin Contact get on the list. (3) SECIR roadmap. The Chair proposed a new roadmap for the SECIR WG, inspired by discussions in Singapore with the SSAC Chair, ICANN¹s head of External Security, Stability & Resiliency, and IANA¹s Director of TechnicaI Services. The WG approved the Chair¹s proposal, which consists of three key elements: * The OPS-TLD list is the final implementation of the ccTLD Contact Repository, instead of an intermediary solution towards a more advanced system. The reason is that a mailing list is the lowest common denominator for all ccTLDs, which increases the changes of getting them all on board. * Secure communication facilities for the exchange of incident information are out of scope. The reason is that setting up the required encryption facilities is quite challenging for some ccTLDs. The WG will therefore stick to ³out-of-band² communication channels for the actual exchange of incident information, which is the WG¹s current operating model. * Interaction with the IANA database. IANA is planning to add ³authorizing contacts² to their database in addition to the existing admin and tech contacts. The WG proposes to also add a ccTLD¹s security and stability contacts and that a follow-up WG defines the interaction between the TLD-OPS list and the new version of the IANA database, both in terms of technology as well as in terms of processes. The WG will expand on their roadmap in the WG's Final Report. (4) Planning of outreach activities. We decided to organize two webinars in the next few weeks and to actively approach the Regional Organizations to get ccTLDs on the TLD-OPS list more quicky. Our next conference call will take place in the week of Mar 16. TLD-OPS homepage: http://ccnso.icann.org/resources/tld-ops-secure-communication.htm SECIR charter: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/secir.htm SECIR members: Erwin Lansing (.dk), Jacques Latour (.ca), Frederico Neves (.br), Abibu Ntahigiye (.tz), Geng-Da Tsai (.tw), and Cristian Hesselman (.nl, chair) Cristian Hesselman Manager SIDN Labs

1 0

CWG Stewardship questions Survey - Results from ccTLD Community
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear all, As you will have noted the ccTLD members on the CWG Stewardship have conducted a consultation on the question by the CWG Stewardship in their Discussion Document published before the Singapore ICANN meeting (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404) . On behalf the ccTLD members on the CWG Stewardship, results have been made available, see http://ianaso.org/CWG/summary.html Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel

1 0