October 2014 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Chuck, no one is disagreeing with the concept of policy issues being addressed as they are now. I am not sure how 2a will clarify this, but am happy to wait. If everyone puts it on hold. Alan At 30/10/2014 07:52 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Alan, > >I think your last sentence is the key >point. Policy differences should be >ârectified at the policy/contractual >levelâ. That is a different level in the >processes for gTLDs and ccTLDs than when the >IANA functions operator is actually performing >its services. I canât speak for Milton, but I >think he is focusing on the very specific tasks >that the IANA functions operator does after the >policy differences have been resolved. One of >the IANA functions enumerated in the IANA >functions contract is âverifying that ICANN >followed its own policy framework including >specific documentation demonstrating how the >process provided the opportunity for input from >relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interestâ. > >I believe that this will be easier to discuss >after the subgroup finishes its work on RFP >Section 2A, which I hope will be before the next meeting. > >Chuck > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:34 AM >To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier > >I am neither Olivier nor a +1, but I'll try. > >First, the process IS politicized. All you are >doing is ensuring that only one faction has a >voice. Yes, as in political systems, that >"simplifies things" but does not necessarily >make it better. This entire discussion reminds >me of the statement attributed to the then CEO >of General Motors - "What is good for General >Motors is good for the Country (ie the USA)", a >statement to which can rationalize all sorts of >corporate misbehaviour seen in later year. In >this case, "What is good for Registries is good >for the Internet". It will certainly be true >much of the time, but I think it presumptuous to >assume that this will be the case in all future >instances. There may well be cases that in the >future, that there is a policy that is decided >governing how IANA is to operate that does not >meet with the complete satisfaction of >registries. That is the nature of a multistakeholder policy process. > >Second, if the policies, contracts, agreements, >etc are clear, there should not be a lot of >judgement call involved in this overseeing. And >when there is, it indicates a problem that needs >to be rectified at the policy/contractual level. > >Alan > >At 29/10/2014 11:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >Olivier, and all the +1-ers, are ignoring the >point that was made about the risks of >circumventing or vetoing community policy by >politicizing the operational and technical >functions via this kind of Ã¢oversightÃ¢ > > >Would you care to address this, please? > > >From: ><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On >Behalf Of Tracy Hackshaw @ Google >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM >To: Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier > >+1 > >Sent from BlackBerry Q10 >From: Lindeberg, Elise >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier > >+ 1 > >Elise > >Fra: ><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] >PÃÂ¥ vegne av Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 19:16 >Til: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier > >Dear Becky, > >thanks for detailing the various functions and >going to depth showing none of the functions >involve policy. To be frank, I am somehow >baffled as to why end users would only be >interested in policy and not operations. >On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote: >Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed >to having other parts of the community >participate, but I donÃ¢t understand why they would want to. > >It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a >lot happier if they could watch... and warn. >Kind regards, > >Olivier > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

CWG - 4th meeting
by Lindeberg, Elise Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Hi Grace Just want to inform you that I`m at the Plenipot in Korea together with many of my colleagues from the GAC - I plan to connect with adobe and join in on the meeting, but there might be complications with ongoing discussions and late work at the Plenipot. Best Elise

2 1

Acceptance of work structure
by Lise Fuhr Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise

5 7

CWG-RFP-1 Document
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 30, 2014

Oct. 30, 2014

Here is a draft document for CWG RFP Section 1. As indicated on page 7, note that subgroup members are still editing this document and that the newest subgroup volunteers just saw it today. Consequently, I do not recommend discussion of this until the subgroup has been able to work it a little further. It should be ready for discussion in the 5 November meeting. Allan is at the Plentipot in Bussan and reports that he probably will not be able to give an audio report on the call so I told him I would do that for tomorrow’s meeting. A rough draft for RFP Section 2A has been completed but has not been reviewed by the subgroup; the goal will be to send an edited version to the CWG list hopefully with some lead time before 5 November. Drafting is still occurring for RFP Section 2B; once that is finished it will be reviewed by the subgroup. 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.”

1 0

Oversight council formation(was Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities)
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

<I am writing this a road journey> I think it will be good to mention that in the composition of the suggested "oversight council", the GAC is just one of the communities to worry about it's representation and role. Who represents the gtld, cctld and end users on the council. The other thing is will this council be external to ICANN or within ICANN community? Who empowers the "oversight council" i.e will this be a separate legitimate entity of some kind or there will be another legitimate body empowering them based on the agreement between that body and ICANN? It will he good as we think of this, we also think about it's practicality holistically; We don't want to have a separation of IANA functions in near future. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Oct 2014 16:20, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > Thanks Elise, very helpful. I was thinking that the “oversight counsel” > would focus on technical and operational issues as opposed to policy > issues: Things like SLAs, how quickly name server changes are processed, > etc. Where a government actually operates the ccTLD, it would be direct > consumers of IANA services, like gTLDs and ccTLDs. > > But policy for IANA would remain in existing ICANN processes. Could you > help me understand which technical/operational IANA services might raise > “public interest” concerns? I agree with you that having some GAC reps on > a Oversight Counsel would not be inconsistent with the Strickling view, but > I am curious about why GAC might want to participate in that kind of > counsel. > > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > From: Legal <King>, Stacey King <stacek(a)amazon.com> > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM > To: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net>, "Lindeberg, Elise" < > elise.lindeberg(a)npt.no>, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com>, > Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, Carolina Aguerre <carolina(a)lactld.org>, > "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the > other two communities > > Thanks, Elise. > > > > It seems that one way around the concern is that we make sure that > somewhere it specifically says that members of the GAC are on equal > standing as any other member of the Oversight Council and, in addition, > that the ICANN Bylaws provision allowing for GAC advice on any policy > matter does not apply to IANA. Ie, that the GAC cannot exercise any > additional authority over IANA functions through other means/routes. > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:38 AM > *To:* Lindeberg, Elise; Donna Austin; Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Great initial response from the GAC Elise. > > +1 > > > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lindeberg, Elise > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:28 AM > *To:* Donna Austin; Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Dear Donna, all > > > > I just wanted to inform you that I have sent an email to GAC members and > Participant in the CWG regarding the role of the GAC/government > representation in a model where there is established an “Oversight > Council” on the IANA function and deliveries. > > > > There is of course the fact that each and every GAC representatives only > speak on behalf of their own government/administration, but I guess that’s > also the case for the ccTLDs and gTLDs - they do not represent the whole > of the ccNSO or the GNSO as such. The model in itself is very challenging, > and we don’t have any conclusion on it. > > > > I just want to underline that If a council were to be established with > broad representation from the community, - I don’t see that GAC/Government > representation in such a model in any way would be in contradiction with > the requirements stated by the NTIA. Governments are one stakeholder in > the Multistakeholder ECO system. Their role in a “Oversight Council” on > equal basis with other stakeholders, looking after the public interest in > the processes of IANA, could not be seen as a government-led or an > inter-governmental organisation solution. > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg > > Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative > > Networks Department > > Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority > > e-mail: ekl(a)npt.no > > Mobile: +47 90190947 > > > > As of January 1st 2015 NPT will be known as theNorwegian Communications > Authority. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *På vegne av* Donna Austin > *Sendt:* 27. oktober 2014 19:42 > *Til:* Burr, Becky; Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the > other two communities > > > > Becky, all > > > > Can someone explain to me how GAC participation/involvement in an > Oversight Council is considered in the context of the NTIA provision that > “… the NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a > government-led or an inter-governmental organisation solution.” > > > > I’m just trying to understand the distinction being made here. Is a > solution that allows government participation on an equal basis as others, > viable? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Donna > > > > [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* > Policy and Industry Affairs Manager > > > > *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* > Melbourne*|*Los Angeles > *P* +1 310 890 9655 > *P* +61 3 9866 3710 > *E* donna.austin(a)ariservices.com > *W* www.ariservices.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=…> > > > > *Follow us on **Twitter* > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservice…> > > > > *The information contained in this communication is intended for the named > recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally > privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended > recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance > on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all > copies from your system and notify us immediately.* > > > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky > *Sent:* Friday, 24 October 2014 7:20 AM > *To:* Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Tracy, > > > > First, the total number of completely unaffiliated ccTLDs is somewhere > around 58, not 96. I suspect that a few of these aren’t actually > delegated, so probably a bit less. But do we think that all gTLDs > participate in the gNSO? That would really surprise me. > > > > Second, why couldn’t those that are completely unaffiliated and prefer to > remain that way participate directly (I.e., without the ccNSO or the > regional organization as an intermediary?) > > > > Finally, I don’t know why this creates the nexus for GAC in future > arrangements? Some ccTLDs operate under government contracts (for example, > .US). Our participation in a User’s Council might be affected by the > contract, but I don’t think that means the Department of Commerce should > (or would want to be) a member of the Council. In a relatively small > number of cases, a government institution actually operates the ccTLD. In > that case, the government would be a direct consumer of IANA services. > > > > Don’t get me wrong, if the notion is that the GAC would have a seat on the > Council, I suppose I wouldn’t object, but in my experience members of the > GAC represent their OWN governments, not the GAC generally. > > > > B > > > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > *From: *Carolina Aguerre <carolina(a)lactld.org> > *Date: *Friday, October 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM > *To: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Hi Tracy, > > Indeed the numbers raised by Peter are global, thus including the LAC > region and LACTLD > > Carolina > > On 24/10/2014 05:03 a.m., Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > Thank you Peter ... extremely helpful. I assume you also have counted > those in LACTLD? > > So ... 96 ccTLDs could POTENTIALLY not recognize the ccNSO in any future > organizational arrangement involving the ccNSO as is being suggested here. > > That is not insubstantial. > > I can also imagine that when you factor those that are Government > affiliated within these 96 ccTLDs, the issues become quite complex as they > relate to these discussions. > > I wonder if this is the nexus for GAC involvement in future organizational > arrangements ... > > However that will still POTENTIALLY leave some ccTLDs out of the future > arrangements being considered here, save for coercing them into joining > either the ccNSO or the regional orgs. > > Any thoughts? > > /t > > > On Oct 24, 2014 3:20 AM, "Peter Van Roste" <peter(a)centr.org> wrote: > > Thanks Tracy for raising this. > > Becky is right, this process is open to all ccTLDs. The regional > organisations are reaching out to those that are not in the ccNSO and to > those that are unaffiliated in their respective regions. > > However, it should be taken into account when discussing the future role > the ccNSO could play, that some ccTLDs will not recognize the ccNSO as a > representative of their interests. > > > > Some stats: > > Out of the 248 ccTLDs: > > 152 are members of the ccNSO. Most of those are also a member of their > regional organisation (AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR and APTLD). > > 38 ccTLDs are members of their regional organisation but not of the ccNSO. > > 58 ccTLDs are unaffiliated. > > > > Regards, > > Peter Van Roste > > General Manager, CENTR > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky > *Sent:* donderdag 23 oktober 2014 23:37 > *To:* Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Allan MacGillivray > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Some of those who do not participate in the ccNSO do participate in > regional organizations such as LACTLD and APTLD. We have also set up a > global list to communicate with ccTLDs that don’t participate in either. > Note that the ccNSO rules permit cc’s to participate fully without actually > joining the ccNSO itself. > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > *From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM > *To: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> > *Cc: *Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller < > mueller(a)syr.edu > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.…>>, > Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > What about the ccTLDs who are NOT part of the ccNSO ... has this been > discussed/dealt with already? > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Allan MacGillivray < > allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> wrote: > > So let’s see if I have got this correct. The idea is that the registries > would set up a corporation that could contract with IANA, either as a > stand-alone entity or as a department of ICANN, for the performance of the > IANA functions – let’s call it ‘RegistryCo’ for short. Would there not be > liability concerns on the part of many registries to being directors of > RegistryCo? Even if they could be convinced, would those ccTLDs that are > governments be comfortable with such an approach? And it would need some > money to get going. Incorporating does take little money, but negotiating > the contract would be quite another issue. > > > > > > > > *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] > *Sent:* October-23-14 4:20 PM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya > *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Correct. In any case, it takes very little time or money to create a > light weight legal entity. > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.…> > > > *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM > *To: *Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com>, Becky Burr < > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz> > *Cc: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca>, Fouad Bajwa < > fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > No. Guru this is incorrect. Both the CCNSO and the GNSO are made up of > mostly incorporated legal entities. Certainly the TLD registries in both > entities are legally incorporated. > > > > *From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com <gurcharya(a)gmail.com>] > > Even though NFL is an unincorporated association, the 32 independent teams > that comprise the unincorporated association are legal entities. These 32 > legal entities then collectively enter to into pooled-rights contract with > any third party. > > > > In comparison, CCNSO and GNSO are not legal entities; and they can not > form an unincorporated association. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> > wrote: > > The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the US, the > question is whether there is an enforceable contract and not whether one of > the contracting parties is a formal legal entity. I can assure you, the > NFL enforces contracts all the time. > > > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > *From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> > *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM > *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller < > mueller(a)syr.edu > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.…>>, > Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Becky – you raise a very important point as to whether unincorporated > entities can enter into enforceable contracts. If they can, it may > simplify things considerably e.g. have ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC? 'take over’ the > contact with ICANN. I had been labouring under the assumption that the > ccNSO, GNSO would have to incorporate to do this. How can we get clarity > on this? > > > > > > Allan > > > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky > *Sent:* October-23-14 11:43 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by talking about > what we need to accomplish requisite accountability. To me, we need some > independent committee, council, unincorporated association, or > representative group to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA > functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and documented. We need > this entity, presumably representative of IANA service consumers, to have > recourse if the SLA’s are not met. > > > > If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal entity we need > for the “SLA Council.” Seems to me that the core of this group would be > registry operators, perhaps with representation from other stakeholders > like registstrars, registrants, etc. Could be stand alone or perhaps > housed in ISOC or the IETF? I am pretty sure that unincorporated > associations can enter into enforceable contracts, etc. (For example, the > National Football League in the US is actually an unincorporated > association). > > > > Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress for a > registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc. That mechanism can be > provided to all through the ICANN bylaws, e.g., as an independent review. > > > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > becky.burr(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.…> > > > *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM > *To: *Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs > the other two communities > > > > > > Fouad: > > By the “technical community proposals” I assume you mean the protocols > community. > > > > What your argument misses is that IANA _*is*_ a separate organizational > entity for both the numbers and protocols communities. > > > > The protocol community has an MoU with ICANN that authorizes ICANN to > perform the IANA functions for them. That MoU can be revoked, and IETF can > decide to use someone else. That is the perfect accountability mechanism. > Now, tell me how the names community achieves that same wonderful state? > There are two ways to do it: pull the IANA out of ICANN, or set up a new > contracting authority to replace the NTIA, which could periodically award > the contract to ICANN or to anyone else qualified. > > > > No one wants “the IANA technical and policy functions [might] fall into > the hands and whims of governments.” That in fact is a requirement imposed > on the transition by the NTIA. But we do need to make significant > organizational changes if we are to meet the requirement of accountability. > I think scare talk about take overs can divert our attention from needed > reforms and I would resist that kind of talk. > > > > I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity at all and > create new opportunities for bureaucracies for governments and industry > control. > > > > The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not make such a > big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under a body that is somewhat > messed up but can be improved in the long run however, ICANN would need > some changes. > > > > The technical community has also shown its concern that it doesn't want > the IANA technical and policy function to fall into the hands of the whims > of governments because it functions to the technical community's needs > adequately in its present environment and role. > > > > Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most transparent and > accountable way forward that ensures an open and inclusive relationship > with the Internet community treating stakeholders in their respective roles > but not giving preference to one group over another another. I don't have > to go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again here. > > > > First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs would have to > be reviewed and should be taken into a broader community review process. I > do not trust the ICANN Board to be able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a > transparent and accountable way, their progress over the years has had its > own set of troubles already. > > > > The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The final word will > remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a developing country member > citizen perspective. I am going through a great deal of suggestions and > proposals and all show a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical > function and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work so > far but require more transparency, accountability and functional > relationships with the community ensuring open and inclusive participation > in its policy development processes. > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also added Option 4 > as a second preference just incase things get delayed with the > accountability process. > > Cheers! > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in a Google Doc which > has been shared. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4Ri… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> > > So far, I note that the majority of our participants on the At-Large IANA > Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > > On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > FYI > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities > > *Date: * > > Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 +0530 > > *From: * > > Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> > > *To: * > > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > > > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.slideshare.net_full…> > > > > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_dra…> > > > > 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 toÂ > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetgovernance.…> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Iana-issues mailing list > > Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Iana-issues mailing list > Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > ...

2 2

CWG Teams and first delivery dates
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

Dear all, Please find included an overview of the members and participants subscription per topic to date ( 28 October 2014, 10 am UTC). The overview of all groups can also be found at : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Work+Item+Sub+Groups All teams are kindly requested to appoint one or two rapporteur(s). The role of the rapporteur(s) is to report back to the whole group on progress made to date and act as point of contact from the chairs perspective. Once appointed, please inform Grace, Marika or me and they will be listed as such on the relevant wiki page. Further, at the first reading of the work structure, included first delivery dates, to be reviewed and discussed by the whole group. These initial dates are included in this overview and can be found on each of the wiki pages as well. Kind regards, Bart Overview of teams, and delivery dates. * CWG-RFP1 - Description of Community's Use of IANA Function (first delivery date: 30 October 2014) Volunteers to date: * Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) * Chuck Gomes (GNSO) * Kieren McCarthy * Seun Ojedeji (ALAC) * Tracy Hackshaw (GAC) * Fouad Bajwa (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP1+-+Descriptio… * CWG-RFP2A - Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements, Policy Sources (first delivery date: 30 October) Volunteers to date: * Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) * Chuck Gomes (GNSO) * Kieren McCarthy * Seun Ojedeji (ALAC) * Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP2A+-+Existing%… * CWG-RFP2B - Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements, Oversight and Accountability (first delivery date: 30 October 2014) Volunteers to date: * Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) * Chuck Gomes (GNSO) * Kieren McCarthy * Paul Kane (ccTLD) * Holly Raiche (ALAC) * Martin Boyle (ccNSO) * Seun Ojedeji (ALAC) * Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC) * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP2B+-+Existing%… * CWG-RFP2C - Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements, NTIA IANA Functions Contract Triage (first delivery date: 10 November) Volunteers to date: * Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) * Chuck Gomes (GNSO) * Kris Seeburn (GNSO) * Greg Shatan (GNSO) * James Gannon * Guru Acharya * Mary Uduma (ccNSO) * Wanawit Ahkuputra (GAC) * Pitinan Kooarmornpatana (GAC) * Eduardo Diaz (ALAC) * Amr Elsadr (NCSG) * Elise Lindeberg (GAC) * Olawale Bakare Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP2C+-+Existing%… * CWG-RFP3 - Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements (first delivery date: week of 10 November) Volunteers to date: * James Gannon * Greg Shatan (GNSO) * Erick Iriarte (ccNSO) * Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) * Mark Carvell (GAC) * Matthew Shears * Donna Austin (GNSO) * Paul Kane (ccTLD) * Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO) * Kris Seeburn (GNSO) * Guru Acharya * Wanawit Ahkuputra (GAC) * Pitinan Kooarmornpatana (GAC) * Eduardo Diaz (ALAC) * Tracy Hackshaw (GAC) * Amr Elsadr (GNSO) * Phil Corwin (GNSO) * Lars-Erik Forsberg (GAC) * Elise Lindeberg (GAC) * Camino Manjon-Sierra (GAC) * Olawale Bakare * Martin Boyle (ccNSO) * Desiree Miloshevic (At-Large) * Fouad Bajwa (ALAC) * Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC) * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP3+-+Proposed+P… * CWG-RFP4 - Transition Implications (final review after CWG-RFP3 is completed but CWG-RFP3 should have developed most of this) (first delivery date: week of 10 November) Volunteers to date: * Matthew Shears * James Gannon * Carolina Aguerre (LACTLD) * Guru Acharya * Wanawit Ahkuputra (GAC) * Pitinan Kooarmornpatana (GAC) * Seun Ojedeji (ALAC) * Tracy Hackshaw (GAC) * Yasuichi Kitamura (ALAC) * Tomohiro Fujisaki (ALAC) * Martin Boyle (ccNSO) * Desiree Miloshevic (ALAC) * Fouad Bajwa (ALAC) * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (ALAC) * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP4+-+Transition… * CWG-RFP5 - NTIA Requirements (validation of) (first delivery date: week of 17 November) Volunteers to date: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49359381 * CWG-RFP6 - Community Process (summary of) (First delivery date: week of 17 November) Volunteers to date: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49359383

5 4

Schedule for F2F in Frankfurt
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 29, 2014

Oct. 29, 2014

Hi all, Today was the deadline for members to confirm their attendance, and I'm proud to announce that, if all goes well with visa processing, we will have full quorum (i.e. all 19 members will be present). Participants please confirm to me (off-list) by 7 November if you plan to attend the F2F meeting in person. After 7 November, the in-person attendance list will be closed so as to finalize logistics and other arrangements. Please note that ICANN is only sponsoring travel and lodging for the 19 members, and that participants may attend at their own expense. As a reminder, this F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Below is the tentative schedule for the F2F meeting in Frankfurt: DAY 0: Arrive Tuesday 18 November Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 18:00. DAY 1: Wednesday 19 November (9:00 18:00) 08:30 09:00: Coffee 09:00 10:40: [Content TBD] 10:40 11:00: Coffee Break 11:00 13:00: [Content TBD] 13:00 14:00: Lunch 14:00 15:40: [Content TBD] 15:40 16:00: Coffee Break 16:00 18:00: [Content TBD] End at 18:00 no planned meal/gathering DAY 2: Thursday 20 November (8:00 16:00) 07:30 08:00: Coffee 08:00 09:40: [Content TBD] 09:40 10:00: Coffee Break 10:00 12:00: [Content TBD] 12:00 13:00: Lunch 13:00 14:40: [Content TBD] 14:40 15:00: Coffee Break 15:00 16:00: [Content TBD] End at 16:00 *Option to stay for live stream of Stakeholder Call <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-10-28-en> from 16:00 17:15. Departure that evening (or Friday 21 Nov if needed) Additional Notes: Dates: 19-20 November (2 full day meeting so arrival needs to be on 18 November) Location: Frankfurt (Le Meridien Parkhotel) Remote participation available (virtual meeting room, phone conference line) ICANN will provide travel support to members (19 ppl max) and lodging for 2/3 nights (depending on travel out). Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. Other CWG participants are welcome to attend in person at their own expense.

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract
by Milton L Mueller Oct. 28, 2014

Oct. 28, 2014

Maarten Again I think we are talking past each other. Maybe we should clarify definitions. You talk of "splitting up functions" and based on your comments below, it sounds like you are discussing the splitting up of _names_-related IANA functions. I don't see any reason to do that. When I talk about the different IANA functions, I am talking about the difference between 1) names, 2) protocols and 3) numbers. In fact, the execution of those 3 functions is already 'split' because they are performed by different people in different ways, and the relevant oversight authorities (1. DNS registries and stakeholders, 2. IETF, 3. RIRs and address holders) are all different. There are very few intersections between the IANA functions for names, numbers and protocols. Are we clear(er) now? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Botterman GNKS Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:02 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Milton - taking the risk of asking more questions, and maybe I am indeed the only one taking it in this way, but: I don't think the problem with oversight of names is with the fact that the execution of several functions is carried out by one body. I just don't understand stand why the splitting up of the execution would be needed when indeed realizing that the oversight for different functions is not in one body, nor is likely to be part of one body. And again taking the risk that my contribution may not be what you think it should be, I would highly appreciate it to talk off line, directly if you think I am wasting the time of this forum or your time. Indeed the intent of my contribution is to be helpful, not to waste time. My summary conclusion so far is that: 1- We mostly agree that oversight should be given in the hands of those stakeholders that care most, as their "business" would be directly affected when execution fails; 2- Some stakeholders do not seem to be prepared to invest time in oversight, even if excellent execution is of utmost importance to them, and we seem to want to seek ways to still involve them. My personal opinion is that we should be willing to educate them and involve them, but that we have no power nor right to drag them in by their hairs - and there is currently clearly no common understanding on how to deal with this (ref: to discussion about ccTLDs, specifically ... and IMHO it goes beyond ccTLDs alone). A proposal that may be helpful is the following consideration for managing "names": - Have general oversight from an SSAC/RSAC perspective; - Have specific oversight per domain by stakeholders in those domains (i.e. at the lowest possible level), and consider defining those domains by their specific needs. For instance, I can see that brand domains have very little in common with open gTLDs, or ccTLDs. So (recognizing it is not a full solution, merely a possible direction for solving the problem) my proposal would be to embrace the principle of "subsidiarity" ... taking decisions at the lowest level where they can be taken, ideally by those that are directly affected. And this would require defining specific domains. Hope this is helpful. Best Maarten From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 21:18 To: 'Maarten Botterman GNKS'; 'cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Maarten I guess you didn't understand my point. The possibility of separating the execution of the functions has nothing to do with how well or how poorly the IANA practical work is performed now. It has to do precisely with what you say needs attention: the oversight function. Oversight for names may or may not be optimized by combining it with oversight for the other functions. What happens, e.g., if one part is performed well and the other poorly? The requirements and procedures are radically different. This is a fact. At any rate, I would encourage you to follow your own advice and "keep busy" developing a proposal that solve the problem for names, and let the other functions worry about their issues, and let the ICG worry about how they fit together when the proposals are in. Deal? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Botterman GNKS Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 1:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract I'm with Avri on this. Never heard anyone being unhappy about the IANA practical work ("IANA functions") as such, I think the world sees that that works, and an old saying in IT is "don't fix it if it isn't broken". It works. Let's keep the focus on where it is to be, effectively: on the oversight function organization. A challenge big enough to keep us busy without also considering a different organization of the functions at the same time - in particular when there is no apparent need for that. Or did I miss something? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 3:20 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract On 27-Oct-14 00:31, Milton L Mueller wrote: C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This assumption is not warranted at the present time. Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as possible and an assumption that they can or even should be moved to seperate entities is not warranted. The solition does not need to match the structure of the operational communities doing the recommendations. Without an anaylisis of the effect of seperation, I think it unwise to assume they can or should be split. I therefore would rather assume that the unity of IANA should be preserved until such time as it is proved that sperating them is the better solution. And until it is proven that sperating them invovles no risk. Even the IETF which is assuming it can pull out of IANA at any time has not done a complete analysis of the risks of doing so. Until we are sure that it does not pose a risk to the Internet, we ought to be careful about dumping this requirement. avri

1 0

Financing the new IANA
by Robert Guerra Oct. 28, 2014

Oct. 28, 2014

Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ? Sent from my iPhone

14 23

Proposed Agenda for CWG meeting on 30 October at 10:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 27, 2014

Oct. 27, 2014

Hi all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IANA Stewardship Transition CWG meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, 30 October at 10:00 UTC. 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Notes from last meeting & Review of action items 3. Second reading for Proposal on how to structure the work 4. Principles new draft 5. Status on work - subgroups 6. Any other business 7. Summary of action items and agreed items Best, Grace

1 0