August 2014 - CWG-DT-Stewardship

Scheduling F2F meeting of CWG in Los Angeles
by Marika Konings Aug. 25, 2014

Aug. 25, 2014

Dear All, As approval of the charter is moving along in the different communities, we would like to go ahead and tentatively schedule a meeting of the CWG in Los Angeles noting that the CWG may already start conversations before that time. However, as the deadline for meeting request forms is 27 August, we will need to complete this request now. As such, the proposal would be to tentatively request a meeting for Monday 13 October from 12.15 13.45 for this meeting. If you have any significant concerns about the proposed time / date, please let me know as soon as possible. The assumption is that once the CWG is formed, it can confirm whether or not it would like to go ahead with this meeting (and/or move it to a different time/day if the schedule allows). Best regards, Marika

6 7

ICG Announces Third Conference Call
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 25, 2014

Aug. 25, 2014

Hi CWG-DT members, The ICG has scheduled their 3rd conference call (information below). The ICG finalized <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/001115.html> the date/time over the weekend which is the reason for the short notice announcement. -Grace The original announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-25-en The third conference call of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will take place on: ** Tuesday, 26 August 2014 ** 12:00-13:00 UTC For time zone conversions, please see here <http://ow.ly/AGIPt> . Remote Participation Information The community is welcome to attend by way of a listen-only mode Virtual Meeting Room <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/> through which audio of the call will be streamed. Translations will be available through relevant Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers and Conference ID codes. A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here <http://adigo.com/icann/> . In the case that there is no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below: * Français – Conference ID: 75929475 * Español – Conference ID: 68385764 * Pусский – Conference ID: 345720 * Português – Conference ID: 759752 Livestreaming translations in 中文 and العربية will be unavailable for this call, however translations of both the audio and transcript will be provided after the meeting. Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service. For all dial-out service requests please contact Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> by 10:00 UTC, 26 August.

1 0

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
by Allan MacGillivray Aug. 22, 2014

Aug. 22, 2014

Tijani - this is the version that was approved by the ccNSO Council. Regards Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: August-22-14 4:16 AM To: Byron Holland; 'Marika Konings'; 'Julie Hammer'; 'Avri Doria' Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Good morning Byron, My understanding is that the chair(s) of the drafting team will make a call for approval to all chartering organizations. I already circulated the latest version to the ALAC list asking for comments. Also, you are referring to the version circulated by Marika, but there were several versions circulated by Marika. Now that you are asking for the chartering organizations approval, it is better to attach the version you want them to approve to avoid any confusion. So, I'm ready to call for the approval of ALAC if you prefer this way of working. But I need you to send the version approved by the ccNSO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland Envoyé : jeudi 21 août 2014 22:26 À : Marika Konings; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All - I just want to follow-up on the status of the charter. Though I agree to reinserting the words "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group" into the draft, I had already circulated the version without these to my council. However, I am pleased to report that at our meeting this morning the ccNSO Council approved the charter and that these words were discussed and reinserted at that time. So the version that Marika circulated on Monday is that which was approved by the ccNSO Council. Could I ask the other SO/AC representatives send this version to their chairs with the news that it has been approved by the ccNSO Council. I will undertake to send it to Heather Dryden, as chair of the GAC. I would appreciate being kept informed of the status of the approval process in these other groups. I also undertake to send it to representativ es of the Internet protocols and addressing communities so that they might understand where we stand. Finally, let we add my thanks and congratulations to the drafting team for your hard work in producing such a quality document in such a short period of time. Byron -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: August-18-14 11:27 AM To: Byron Holland; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All, Based on the comments on the mailing list as well as initial feedback from the GNSO Council list, there is support for adding back in the sentence that was deleted in section II last paragraph of the scope section as pointed out by Chuck, namely: ""Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." For your convenience, please find attached a revised version of the charter that includes this sentence for distribution to your groups. Should any additional comments come in from your respective groups, you may want to relay these to the DT so it can be determined whether further changes are needed / desirable, noting that the further along the consideration of the charter by the different groups goes, the more time it may take to pull back the charter and incorporate possible changes to make sure all groups adopt the same version. As in this case it concerns a sentence that was probably inadvertantly deleted, hopefully it will not cause any major issues. Best regards, Marika On 14/08/14 18:15, "Byron Holland" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> wrote: >I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council. >But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken >the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN >Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have >attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version. > >But now I must really send this out to my council. > >Byron > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer >Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM >To: Avri Doria >Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter > >Hi Avri, > >Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time. > >Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is >essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more >eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not >object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG >charter. > >Cheers, Julie > >On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: > > > >On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote: >> Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive' >> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who >> worked on it. > > >Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now. Indicating that we missed a >chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work. > >> I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume >> that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA >> accountability, when, in fact, there is. >> >> "Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and >> the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN >> policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for >> the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and >> operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of >> this working group." >> >> The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way: >> >> " The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a >> parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. >> While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance >> is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the >> arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an >> accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the >> NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated >> and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work." > > >I have argued: > >> >> I think they both say a similar thing. >> >> - the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability >> related to IANA is in scope > >and >> >> On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote: > >>> So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's >>> results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even >>> if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and >>> jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along the >>> way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and monitoring >>> each others' progress. >> >> >> I do. I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work >> it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going >> further than passive coordination. >> >> Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this >> case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up >> ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for >> that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends >> up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could >> come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever >> it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note >> we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged. >> >> This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the >> GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if >> we continue to find it problematic. > > >and repsonse from Milton > >> The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said: >> >> >> "the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should >> appropriately coordinate their work." >> >> This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it >> suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An >> extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to >> not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the >> broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up >> the false notion that the two things are completely detached and >> separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what >> advocates of accountability don't want. >> >> I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias >> for the oversight in the CWG charter. > > >cheers, > >avri >_______________________________________________ >CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

2 1

Final Draft Charter
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 22, 2014

Aug. 22, 2014

Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20 Summary%20Chart.docx?api=v2 and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa ry.docx?api=v2 , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg) One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, 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. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. 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. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA¹s statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: > * Included Stephanie's text. > * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" > (Grace/Staff). > * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the > text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

9 22

POSTED: SAC067 Overview and History of the IANA Functions
by Julie Hammer Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

Good morning Everyone, The SSAC has for some time been working on a document to assist the community in working on IANA Stewardship Transition by describing the history of the IANA functions and an overview of what those functions are. The final version of the document has been posted to the SSAC web page at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf and in also attached to this email. Hope you find this helpful. Cheers, Julie

1 0

Accountability Process Posted
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

Hi CWG-DT members, In case you have not seen this announcement yet, ICANN posted the process and next steps for the Enhancing Accountability and Governance track. I've copied the information and links below. Please see the original announcement at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-14-en ICANN today published Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance - Process and Next Steps <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> , a document that describes the process to examine how, from an organizational perspective, ICANN's accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical relationship with the US Government including looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms. On 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition its stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to the global stakeholder community, which would end its contractual relationship with ICANN that has existed since 1998. That historical relationship has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability. Last spring, when the community began its initial discussions on the task of transitioning NTIA's stewardship of the IANA Functions, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability. What emerged was a commitment to launch a second process parallel but interrelated with the IANA stewardship transition process to do this work. During an extended public comment period from the beginning of May to the end of June, we received 49 comments, with a majority discussing the more substantive aspects of accountability, while some focused on the design of the review process itself. We took those comments relating to the development of the process, along with those from the community dialogues at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and developed the accountability review process published today. The comments provided on issues for consideration for enhancements to ICANNaccountability, or proposed solutions, are provided in a separate document for consideration by the community groups performing the work on Enhancing ICANN accountability. An important attribute of the IANA Stewardship Transition process and this ICANN Accountability & Governance Review process is that the work of each completes in time to meet the expectations of theIANA Functions Contract ending in September 2015. The Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Process and Next Steps document can be foundhere <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> [PDF <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/process-next-steps-pdf-14aug14- en.pdf> , 131 KB]. An infographic providing a visual display of the proposed process can be found here <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/process-infographic-14aug1 4-en.pdf> [PDF, 926 KB]. A Summary Report of Public Comments received on the proposed process can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-enhancing-accou ntability-14aug14-en.pdf> [PDF, 414 KB]. Comments provided on issues for consideration for enhancements to ICANN accountability are foundhere <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/issues-identified-14aug14-en.pd f> [PDF, 69 KB], on proposed solutions here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-solutions-14aug14-en.p df> [PDF, 128 KB] and all public comments received can be found here <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14> .

1 0

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
by Julie Hammer Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

Tijani, Your point is a valid one and well made. In general, I do agree with you. Having said that, I have a suspicion that, in this specific case, a little wordsmithing now may well avert objections and criticism of wording which may delay the approval of this document downstream. Cheers, Julie On 15 Aug 2014, at 8:29 am, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: Why it is crucial to have the same wording as the ICG one??? We agreed on a charter after several iterations of drafting and update. We fixed a deadline for last last update, and this deadline is passed. The final document had the full consensus of the drafting team. There is no reason we modify it. If we continue like that, we will never finish modifying our charter. So, my inclination is to keep the already agreed text without modification. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2014 17:15 À : Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council. But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version. But now I must really send this out to my council. Byron -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi Avri, Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time. Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG charter. Cheers, Julie On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote: > Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive' > <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who > worked on it. Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now. Indicating that we missed a chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work. > I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume > that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA > accountability, when, in fact, there is. > > "Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and > the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN > policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for > the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and > operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of > this working group." > > The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way: > > " The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a > parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. > While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance > is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the > arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an > accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the > NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated > and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work." I have argued: > > I think they both say a similar thing. > > - the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability > related to IANA is in scope and > > On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote: >> So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's >> results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even >> if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and >> jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along the >> way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and monitoring >> each others' progress. > > > I do. I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work > it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going > further than passive coordination. > > Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this > case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up > ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for > that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends > up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could > come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever > it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note > we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged. > > This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the > GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if > we continue to find it problematic. and repsonse from Milton > The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said: > > > "the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should > appropriately coordinate their work." > > This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it > suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An > extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to > not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the > broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up > the false notion that the two things are completely detached and > separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what > advocates of accountability don't want. > > I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias > for the oversight in the CWG charter. cheers, avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

2 1

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
by Burr, Becky Aug. 14, 2014

Aug. 14, 2014

Agree – very good work! J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter It has been a great team to work with. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:47 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter I think that this is an excellent product. Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being ‘impressive’<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.internetgovernance.or…>. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it. Allan From:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]>On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: August-13-14 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%2…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/down…> and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summ…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/down…> , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/x/CL…>). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, 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. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. 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. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA’s statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/lis…>

3 3

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 13, 2014

Aug. 13, 2014

Thanks Byron. It looks ready to go for me. Chuck From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:30 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Final Draft Charter Hi Yes, I did confirm last night that I was satisfied with the language of the whole draft, including my own comment. That said, I like Julie's finetuning of my comment and am supportive of making that final edit. Thanks all, Byron From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-13-14 10:22 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Did we ever find out whether Byron was going to provide revised wording for the section he had concerns about? If not, that could possibly be provided by the ccNSO in their approval of the draft charter. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%2… and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summ… , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg) One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, 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. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. 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. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA's statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

2 1

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 13, 2014

Aug. 13, 2014

Tijani, Keep in mind that the goal of a WG is to identify differences and then work toward solutions where the differences are minimized enough so that most everyone can support the solutions even though it might not be all that they wanted. Once solutions are identified, it is important to determine whether the differences are minimized enough that most individuals and groups participating in the WG will support specific elements of a proposal. Polling works fine for this. And as Marika explained, it is not a matter of counting hands because that would be too easy for a group to capture, which I think is your concern. But it is possible for a chair or chairs in cooperation with the full group to make an assessment whether or not there is significant opposition to a recommendation and whether more work should be done to refine the recommendation further or whether a point has been reached where additional work may be unproductive. The fact that 10 people from one group have one opinion that they all support while five individuals for separate groups support a different position doesn't mean that the 10 people win. The bigger picture must be looked at in the context of the whole community. Chuck From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:04 AM To: 'Duchesneau, Stephanie'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Julie Hammer' Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Chuck and all, You mentioned in the yesterday call that the number of members per group wouldn't matter since no formal vote will be used for decision making. I'm afraid I don't agree since the consensus (used for decision making) will be affected by the number of member per group. Suppose we are 5 ALAC members with 7 GNSO members on a WG where there are only ALAC and GNSO as chartering organizations (total WG members=12). When we have to decide by consensus, the chair can feel there is a consensus if 7 GNSO members agree and 4 or 3 ALAC members disagree. But if there are as many members from ALAC as from GNSO, the consensus will be different. The only case where the number doesn't matter is a decision by full consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with you insisting on avoiding any vote to make a decision by the CWG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> De la part de Duchesneau, Stephanie Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2014 22:28 À : 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer Cc : CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Chuck, Would the following better address your concerns: In appointing their members, the chartering organizations should note that the CWG's decision-making methodologies require that CWG members act by consensus, and that polling will only be used in rare instances and with the recognition that such polls do not constitute votes. Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:24 PM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Thanks Stephanie. The minor edits looks okay to me. With regard to the sentence you crafted below, I personally prefer it if we directly include a description of what we want them to see rather than making a reference to because I suspect that some people will not take the time to go to the reference. If we do it as you suggest, I suggest we specifically refer to the section in the charter that contains what we want them to review. What do others think? Chuck From: Duchesneau, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:42 AM To: 'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Added the following to language regarding Membership criteria: In appointing members the CWG, the chartering organizations should note the CWG's decision-making methodologies with respect to consensus calls and polling. Have made a few other minor edits throughout reflected in the attached, which I believe are non-substantive/reflective of previous group discussion. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04 AM To: Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review I am also comfortable with this wording. Thanks Chuck. From: Julie Hammer [mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com] Sent: August-11-14 11:03 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Allan MacGillivray; CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Chuck, I think this is better wording and am happy with this. Many thanks. Cheers, Julie On 12 Aug 2014, at 12:53 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Allan. Now I know what the intent was. Would the following work: "That proposal may include alternativeoptions for specific features within it, provided that each option carries comparable support from the CWG. " Chuck From: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Chuck - I worked on this with Julie. The objective here was to give the CWG the flexibility of providing more than one option, but not the flexibility to provide dissenting opinions, that is options on which there is no consensus e.g. 'we are happy with any of these options because we have achieved the same level of consensus on all of them'. Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-11-14 10:40 AM To: Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Importance: High Thanks Julie. The second sentence isn't clear to me. If I had to explain what it means to others, I don't think I could do that. Can you possibly tweak it some? What do you mean by 'specific features'? What kind of features? Maybe some examples would help. Also, what does 'the same level of consensus' mean? Same level of consensus as what? Do you simply mean 'each option has consensus support of the group'? Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:09 AM To: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Hi Everyone, I propose that the first sentence in the section titled 'Goals and Objectives' be amended to read: The primary goal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (CWG) will be to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System. That proposal may include options for specific features within it, provided that each option carries the same level of consensus from the CWG. Cheers, Julie On 11 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote: Thanks Marika and CWG Colleagues, The agenda below is the one I expect we will now follow. As proposed a little over a week ago and also below, I think the realistic way to work through the charter in the time allocated for the call is to seek objections to / concerns with the current wording. To the extent that members are OK with the wording, we'll take that as read. Many thanks to those who have contributed to getting this in such good shape over a relatively short time, Talk with you all at 13h00 UTC. Jonathan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 08 August 2014 12:22 To: CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for Monday's DT meeting, subject to revisions by the co-chairs and input from the DT. Having discussed this with Jonathan, we would like to encourage you to identify any other items beyond those listed in agenda item 2 that in your view need to be further discussed by the DT - we will operate under the assumption that apart from those items already identified and additional items that may get flagged prior to the meeting, the current language / proposed edits as in the latest version of the charter as attached are acceptable by all and do not need further discussion. Please note that in the attached version (based on the version that Julie sent earlier today), I've added some proposed wording to the 'additional resources required' section to highlight that this is something the CWG should preferably focus on at an early stage as it is unlikely that the DT at this point in time will be in a position to identify what additional resources the CWG may need. If you have any comments and/or questions, please share those with the list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - DT Meeting - Monday 11 August at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & roll call 2. Draft Charter - Review open items (membership, no consensus, additional resources - DT members to identify which other sections / items need further review ahead of the meeting) 3. Confirm deadline for final edits / comments with aim to have DT Chairs submit charter to all SO/ACs by 14 August at the latest for consideration 4. Any next steps for the DT while SO/ACs consider the charter for approval? 5. AOB 6. Closure _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/lis…> ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

2 1