October 2014 - CWG-Stewardship

RySG Rep to the CWG
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

I am pleased to report that Donna Austin will be the official member from the RySG on the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG. Donna is from the Asia Pacific region. Also, Stephanie Duchesneau will serve as an alternate for Donna if needed. Stephanie is from North America. Both of them have been participants in the CWG so they are not new to the list. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 1

Notes and action items from F2F meeting
by Marika Konings Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the high level notes and action items of Monday¹s F2F meeting (note, action items have also been highlighted below). To review the full transcript and recording of the meeting, please see: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-naming. The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday 22 October at 13.00 UTC for 2 hours (call details will be circulated separately). Best regards, Marika Action items: * CWG members and participants to review the revised timeline <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49357552/CWG%20Draft%20Tim eline%20-%207%20October%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413216722000& api=v2> and provide any additional comments / input on the mailing list. * CWG members and participants to review the ICG Request for Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en .pdf> * Volunteers to assist Allan in preparing draft language for items 1 and 2 to express their interest on the mailing list * CWG members and participants to review the IANA Functions Contract <https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf>

4 6

Names Community vs the other two communities
by Guru Acharya Oct. 19, 2014

Oct. 19, 2014

How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. >From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya

9 16

Community input listserv
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2014

Oct. 18, 2014

Do we have an email or listserv for such input?

7 14

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
by philip＠brandregistrygroup.org Oct. 18, 2014

Oct. 18, 2014

1 0

Communication with numbers and protocol parameters groups
by Greg Shatan Oct. 16, 2014

Oct. 16, 2014

All: Are there people in this group who are in a position to liaise with, coordinate with and/or provide information to and from the other two groups preparing responses for their respective communities? I think opening a "horizontal" channel would be most helpful in our work. Greg Shatan

5 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
by Bilal Titi Oct. 16, 2014

Oct. 16, 2014

Well said. Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Oct 2014, at 9:36 am, "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Greg very much well said. Not to say that IANA is not an entity but a Function. A function that directly impacts on the Number community. I agree with what some of you said lets look at all options. I would argue that we need to see all the options quite fast as well to really move things forward. > > For information sake the NRO/ IETF or if we want to be sure consisted of the as they loosely called themselves the I* leaders:- > AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, IAB, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, W3C & LACTLD - should be ccTLD > > There focus is on Numbers and we have to agree to that they have a particular bit in what makes it work in the addressing and infrastructure part. What APNIC have come up is not sole to APNIC but something that these I* leaders have agreed onto. It is less complicated for them as i suggested before. > > For interest sake i am attaching some information docs. And a bit of the NRO view on accountability: > The NRO does not believe that the contract with the US government should be replaced with a similar mechanism at a global level, therefore a guiding principle is specifically not to create any "superior" structure or organisation; rather ICANN's accountability should be defined in terms of transparent agreements with ICANN stakeholders, in which roles and responsibilities, and dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms are fully defined. We believe that a failure by ICANN to abide clearly by established accountability mechanisms, and in particular by defined dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms should have clear consequences, and therefore that arbitration mechanisms should be binding. Furthermore, they must be implementable and effective upon ICANN, regardless of its final structure or locale.The guiding principles for defining or strengthening these accountability mechanisms should be: that they are transparent, implementable and open to improvement; and that they operate in the interests of the open, stable and secure operation of the Internet. > > > I hope this gives away some input. > >> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2 IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.) >> >> Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not to transition IANA. >> >> Greg Shatan >> >> On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: >> Guru, >> >> 1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals. >> >> 2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently. >> >> 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Guru Acharya <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM >> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >> Cc: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities >> >> What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way? >> >> Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG. >> >> I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible? >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: >> +1 >> >> and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”. >> >> There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> From: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM >> To: Krishna Seeburn <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> >> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities >> >> Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM >> To: Guru Acharya >> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities >> >> >> >> Thanks for those acharya. >> >> >> >> IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. >> >> >> >> The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. >> >> >> >> The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. >> >> >> >> But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. >> >> >> >> My 2 cents >> >> >> Kris Seeburn >> >> skype: kris_seeburn30 >> >> Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn <http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn> >> >> On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? >> >> >> >> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. >> >> www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 <http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1> >> >> >> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00> >> >> >> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> >> >> Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? >> >> >> >> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> >> >> Therefore, it is essential to either >> >> >> >> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian…> >> >> >> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate >> >> >> >> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. >> >> >> >> From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. >> >> >> >> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. >> >> >> >> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. >> >> >> >> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Acharya >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k(a)gmail.com > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> > > > > > <NRO Relationship.pdf> > <ATT00001> > <XPL_ICAN1314_ASO map_06.pdf> > <ATT00002> > <smime.p7s> > <ATT00003>

1 0

Any Next step actions?
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 14, 2014

Oct. 14, 2014

Hi, Sorry for the seemingly dumb question. However I figured raising this on the mailing list may better provide a more inclusive response. My observation is that we just concluded a face-2-face meeting of this WG and it feels like the way forward may not have been clearly defined and agreed upon. Although there were some suggestion on this, I will like to request that staff kindly provide a summary of the action plan (next steps) for the working group so we can be on the same page. Thanks Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

2 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The Jordan Carter / InternetNZ document
by Robert Guerra Oct. 14, 2014

Oct. 14, 2014

Thank you for this Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 13, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Keith Davidson <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > This message cannot be displayed because of the way it is formatted. Ask the sender to send it again using a different format or email program. message/rfc822

2 1

Thoughts from Meeting
by King(Legal), Stacey Oct. 13, 2014

Oct. 13, 2014

All Not to be simplistic, but I read our task as follows. 1. We currently have a contract between the US gov't and ICANN. 2. We are doing away with that contract in terms of the US being the party controlling the obligations under the contract. 3. We need to: - identify what entity controls the obligation; - what organization is carrying out the obligations; - what those obligations include; and - what accountability mechanisms need to be put in place to make sure the controlling party is doing what it is supposed to do. And none of these parties should be gov't controlled. Sent from my HTC

1 0