For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Dear All, As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits. Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg. Best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items 21/7: * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window Composition of ccWG * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter Public consultations * At least one, if not two public comment forums Involvement of the GAC * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG) Development of workplan and timelines * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting Charter (Edits in real time) * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list:
* Accountability * Role of Maintainer
Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful. As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990's with NSI (Network Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign). Amendment 11 of that agreement contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our call today. That amendment can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf . Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: "NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity." Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling has made since the transition was proposed: 1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-str... Relevant excerpt: In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of conditions that we insist must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. And in that regard, all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role. Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. 2. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-ro... Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions? A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA. Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign? A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. 3. Larry's comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French GAC rep question):
LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED STATES' ROLE. SO WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR ADJUSTED.
I hope this is helpful. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31 AM To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Dear All, As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits. Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg. Best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items 21/7: * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window Composition of ccWG * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter Public consultations * At least one, if not two public comment forums Involvement of the GAC * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG) Development of workplan and timelines * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting Charter (Edits in real time) * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: * Accountability * Role of Maintainer
Comments on the draft circulated this morning 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@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful. As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990’s with NSI (Network Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign). Amendment 11 of that agreement contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our call today. That amendment can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=efdea554c36c6e89bc9091f91002b9cb65aaf9925b0adcb7cde0269e98d74673> . Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: “NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity.” Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling has made since the transition was proposed: 1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-icann-high-level-governmental-meeting<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-icann-high-level-governmental-meeting&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=66b743cba1a8c7ea6b7bbe157e313fb88ca227128ea03bd57ee87a9333f99b5b> Relevant excerpt: In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of conditions that we insist must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. And in that regard, all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role. Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. 2. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=8fdc51eac2aced006e4475fee4408ea1d6ad7647c1d5e8acc8747cbd96b965e6> Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions? A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA. Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign? A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. 3. Larry’s comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French GAC rep question):
LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED STATES' ROLE. SO WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR ADJUSTED.
I hope this is helpful. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31 AM To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Dear All, As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits. Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=b0bc76dd845150fe0eb8f5291eeb3613181fcb4c536b4d1fb6dde96ca9989d32>. Best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items 21/7: * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window Composition of ccWG * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter Public consultations * At least one, if not two public comment forums Involvement of the GAC * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG) Development of workplan and timelines * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting Charter (Edits in real time) * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: * Accountability * Role of Maintainer
Hi, I have added a few more comments. avri On 21-Jul-14 14:30, Burr, Becky wrote:
Comments on the draft circulated this morning
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@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful.
As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990’s with NSI (Network Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign). Amendment 11 of that agreement contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our call today. That amendment can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/nti...> . Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: “NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity.”
Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling has made since the transition was proposed:
1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-str... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtes...>
Relevant excerpt:
/In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of conditions that we insist must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. And in that regard, *all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role. Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process.* Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet./
2. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-ro... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-pub...>
*Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions?**
*A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA.*
**Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?*
A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which *would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition* in these responsibilities.
3. Larry’s comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French GAC rep question):
LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED STATES' ROLE. SO *WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR ADJUSTED.*
I hope this is helpful.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31 AM *To:* CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Dear All,
As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits.
Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/x/hbr...>.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes / Action Items 21/7:*
* ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window
/Composition of ccWG/
* Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter
/Public consultations/
* At least one, if not two public comment forums
/Involvement of the GAC/
* Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG)
/Development of workplan and timelines/
* Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting
/Charter/
(Edits in real time)
* The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: o Accountability o Role of Maintainer
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
All good contributions Avri. I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3. I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?" I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5. On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16. Chuck Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :) -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi, I have added a few more comments. avri On 21-Jul-14 14:30, Burr, Becky wrote:
Comments on the draft circulated this morning
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@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful.
As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990's with NSI (Network Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign). Amendment 11 of that agreement contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our call today. That amendment can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/fi les/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3 D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WC dNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=efdea554c36c6e89bc9091f 91002b9cb65aaf9925b0adcb7cde0269e98d74673> . Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: "NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity."
Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling has made since the transition was proposed:
1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secreta ry-strickling-icann-high-level-governmental-meeting <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/sp eechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-icann-high-l evel-governmental-meeting&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11 wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNv qDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=66b743cba1a8c7ea6b7bbe157e313fb88ca227 128ea03bd57ee87a9333f99b5b>
Relevant excerpt:
/In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of conditions that we insist must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. And in that regard, *all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role. Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process.* Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet./
2. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-rela ted-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ot her-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-t ransition-questions-and-answ&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2B U11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abE iNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=8fdc51eac2aced006e4475fee4408ea1d6a d7647c1d5e8acc8747cbd96b965e6>
*Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions?**
*A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA.*
**Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?*
A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which *would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition* in these responsibilities.
3. Larry's comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French GAC rep question):
LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED STATES' ROLE. SO *WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR ADJUSTED.*
I hope this is helpful.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31 AM *To:* CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Dear All,
As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits.
Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/x/hbr...>.
Best regards,
Marika
*Notes / Action Items 21/7:*
* ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window
/Composition of ccWG/
* Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter
/Public consultations/
* At least one, if not two public comment forums
/Involvement of the GAC/
* Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG)
/Development of workplan and timelines/
* Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting
/Charter/
(Edits in real time)
* The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: o Accountability o Role of Maintainer
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012. i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake. thanks for noticing. avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
I am good with Avri¹s comments/suggestions but I think we should avoid calling members of the WG ³representatives² of their communities - we will take the work product back to the communities, and yes the participants have to be able to understand and articulate the concerns of their communities, but some times there will be a range of views within a community. Definitely agree best to avoid voting Also agree that sub-group members should be identified from the membership of the CWG - just thought it was a little unclear in the text. 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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 7/22/14, 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
All, I would like to put in a placeholder to discuss resourcing in a little more detail. ICANN is committed to supporting this effort. What do we need in terms of staff, face-to-face meetings and other resourcing. A sketch of an indicative timeline for the working group could guide our (and their) thinking here. At least this would provide a couple of key indicators i.e. it could: a. guide any volunteers who signed up for the WG b. guide us / staff as to the resourcing requirements of the WG Do others feel similarly? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 22 July 2014 22:47 To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting I am good with Avri¹s comments/suggestions but I think we should avoid calling members of the WG ³representatives² of their communities - we will take the work product back to the communities, and yes the participants have to be able to understand and articulate the concerns of their communities, but some times there will be a range of views within a community. Definitely agree best to avoid voting Also agree that sub-group members should be identified from the membership of the CWG - just thought it was a little unclear in the text. 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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 7/22/14, 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
The sooner we consider resource needs the better in my opinion. Dealing with such issues now may minimize delays later. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:46 AM To: 'Burr, Becky'; 'Avri Doria'; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting All, I would like to put in a placeholder to discuss resourcing in a little more detail. ICANN is committed to supporting this effort. What do we need in terms of staff, face-to-face meetings and other resourcing. A sketch of an indicative timeline for the working group could guide our (and their) thinking here. At least this would provide a couple of key indicators i.e. it could: a. guide any volunteers who signed up for the WG b. guide us / staff as to the resourcing requirements of the WG Do others feel similarly? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 22 July 2014 22:47 To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting I am good with Avri¹s comments/suggestions but I think we should avoid calling members of the WG ³representatives² of their communities - we will take the work product back to the communities, and yes the participants have to be able to understand and articulate the concerns of their communities, but some times there will be a range of views within a community. Definitely agree best to avoid voting Also agree that sub-group members should be identified from the membership of the CWG - just thought it was a little unclear in the text. 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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 7/22/14, 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits. Best regards, Marika On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
Hi Marika, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to make the next CWG DT call due to take place next Monday 28 July. I apologize. But I will send my contribution by mail by tomorrow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Marika Konings Envoyé : jeudi 24 juillet 2014 11:47 À : Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits. Best regards, Marika On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
--- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
Thanks Marika. In my opinion, the charter is coming along very well. Before it gets too far along I want to throw out an idea that I have been thinking about for a while. The ccTLD community and gTLD community have similar concerns with regard to IANA naming functions but there are issues that are also unique to each group. So I have been wondering whether it might make sense for each community to be tasked with developing some initial proposals that would be proposed to the full CWG regarding their unique needs. This early breakdown of work could be left to the CWG itself to consider or it could be part of the charter. I do not have strong feelings one way or the other except that by including it in the charter, it might encourage the two communities to start working on proposals sooner. I am assuming that both the GNSO and ccNSO will be modifying their processes and procedures so that stakeholders that are not yet a part of ICANN will also be able to participate. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits. Best regards, Marika On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny. Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter? Thanks Allan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits. Best regards, Marika On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
Hi, I remote attended that session. It was a good discussion. It was interesting to watch the evolution in the perception of some of the issues as the meting went on. There was also a good discussion going on in the jabber room. avri On 24-Jul-14 15:49, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny.
Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter?
Thanks
Allan
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits.
Best regards,
Marika
On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
Hi all, Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments. Talk to you all on Monday, Grace On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny.
Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter?
Thanks
Allan
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits.
Best regards,
Marika
On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, Some additional edits and suggestions based on discussion in the NCSG. avri On 26-Jul-14 01:25, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments.
Talk to you all on Monday, Grace
On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny.
Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter?
Thanks
Allan
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits.
Best regards,
Marika
On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I added some responses to Avri's comments as well as some new edits for consideration and a few new personal comments that are all highlighted in the attached redline version. I also identified sections and/or comments that I think need discussion by the full drafting by using green font. Essentially that means that all comments need to be discussed along with the associated charter text. I encourage others to do the same for other sections of the draft charter that they think the full DT should discuss and insert a comment for each one. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 4:54 AM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi, Some additional edits and suggestions based on discussion in the NCSG. avri On 26-Jul-14 01:25, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments.
Talk to you all on Monday, Grace
On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny.
Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter?
Thanks
Allan
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits.
Best regards,
Marika
On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Dear all, Being unable to attend Mondays call, I provide you hereafter with my remarks on the Charters last version/ · The Scope part was modified according to our last calls discussion, but the Problem Statement and Goals and Objectives ones still present the CWG as a joint ccNSO-GNSO WG on the stewardship transition of IANA function related to naming services only. · Deliverables concerns substance, not process. The content of the Deliverables section should be under another section called working methods for example, while We should say what this CWG has to produce as substance (report about a transition plan, ) with full details in the deliverable section · The definition of the consensus level should be in my opinion: o Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection o Consensus a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of full consensus, the chairs should . I would like to thank all those who proposed the modifications, especially Avri who captured very well the content of the discussion of last call. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : samedi 26 juillet 2014 00:25 À : Allan MacGillivray; Marika Konings; Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi all, Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments. Talk to you all on Monday, Grace On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to
establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a
presentation (available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx )
which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While
it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects
some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week.
You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a
submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by
Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved
to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its
own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form
of US Congressional scrutiny.
Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next
version of the draft charter?
Thanks
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika
Konings
Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM
To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of
charter & notes from meeting
As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the
liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the
comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and
sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional
members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use
this version to make any further comments / edits.
Best regards,
Marika
On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been
working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally
press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.
i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.
thanks for noticing.
avri
All good contributions Avri.
thanks
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the
Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on
page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on
page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment
Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from
me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been
working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message----- From:
cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To:
cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For
your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
_____ --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (8)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Robinson -
Marika Konings -
Tijani BEN JEMAA