November 2014 - CWG-Stewardship

CWG RFP2B Proposal
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 17, 2014

Nov. 17, 2014

Here is a draft of the ICG RFP Section 2B proposal for full CWG review and discussion. Please make any suggested edits using the Word redlining function and save the file with your name before sending it to the CWG list. Questions and comments are also welcome on this list before you make edits. 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.”

9 33

Suggestion to freeze documents sometime before the F2F meeting
by Eduardo Diaz Nov. 17, 2014

Nov. 17, 2014

@All: I suggest that we reach some sort of consensus on selecting a date and time that all documents of the sub-groups (and other sub-groups) 1 to 3 are frozen, i.e. no more revisions are made to them previous to start our f2f meeting. I foresee a rough f2f start without a baseline set of these documents. Having said that, I recommend the day/time to be Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 12:00 UTC. This will provide plenty of time to update the wiki and print all necessary material for the f2f. All frozen documents should be clearly posted in the wiki (or their corresponding links), communicated to the cwg list and have them available in printing form for easier browsing, reference and correlation. Comments/enhancements? -ed -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

3 2

Draft of Principles
by Lise Fuhr Nov. 16, 2014

Nov. 16, 2014

Dear All, Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt. Best regards, Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr

5 5

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: FW: CWG RFP2B Proposal
by kurt＠kjpritz.com Nov. 16, 2014

Nov. 16, 2014

3 3

Version 2 of RFP Section 2A with redlined edits
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 14, 2014

Nov. 14, 2014

Here is version 2 of the draft proposal in response to Section 2A of the ICG RFP; note that all edits made to the original version sent to the CWG list are redlined to make it easy for everyone to see the changes made. If you proposed edits and they were not made, please speak up. Questions and comments are welcome on this list. If you want to propose additional edits, please create a clean version of the file, make the edits on the clean version, save the file with your name and send it to this list. We will create a version three the first of next week if needed. Thanks to Bernie for all the time he spent creating version 2. 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 1

IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal Version 2 Redline
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 14, 2014

Nov. 14, 2014

Here is a redline version of IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal Version 2 that highlights all of the changes made to the original sent to the CWG list based on CWG input. Note that many of the comments submitted by CWG participants were retained to make it clear where and/or why edits were made or not. Questions and comments are welcome on this list. If you want to propose additional edits, please create a clean version of the file, make the edits on the clean version, save the file with your name and send it to this list. We will create a version three next week if needed. Thanks to Bernie for all the time he spent creating version 2. 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 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Version 2 of RFP Section 2A with redlined edits
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 14, 2014

Nov. 14, 2014

All I've uploaded the document to the Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/CWG-RFP2A-10NOVED ITS-RedLine.docx?api=v2> for your sharing/downloading convenience. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 2:24 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Version 2 of RFP Section 2A with redlined edits Here is version 2 of the draft proposal in response to Section 2A of the ICG RFP; note that all edits made to the original version sent to the CWG list are redlined to make it easy for everyone to see the changes made. If you proposed edits and they were not made, please speak up. Questions and comments are welcome on this list. If you want to propose additional edits, please create a clean version of the file, make the edits on the clean version, save the file with your name and send it to this list. We will create a version three the first of next week if needed. Thanks to Bernie for all the time he spent creating version 2. Chuck ³This 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

4 4

Notes and Actions from 13 November meeting
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Hi all, The 13 November meeting (meeting #6) ended an hour early today. Greg, as rapporteur of RFP3, motioned to use the time available to continue RFP3 discussions. This request was accepted and the second hour of the call was dedicated to RFP3. Please refer to the meeting notes, recording, and transcript to review this session. I am uploading full notes to today's meeting page <https://community.icann.org/x/zi3xAg> on the Wiki. I will also upload notes specific to the RFP 3 discussions to the RFP3 meeting page <https://community.icann.org/x/ZDXxAg> so that there is a clear archive. Action Items from the meeting: * Rapporteurs RFP 4 and 5 to be appointed before F2F * Lise to review Principles document and send out to the list before F2F meeting * Berry to include legends on icons in next version * All review comments and edits made. RFP 1 and RFP 2A. * Allan to do mapping between RFP 2B and RFP 2 C (second document) * All: look at Google document and add contributions in Matrix and Individual strawman docs * Greg to consult with staff on how to include contributions on list in documents * Staff to check whether Google sheets could be used for matrix document. * Greg to post email on RFP 3 elements to email list to solicit reaction * RFP 4 requested to start its work asap? Finally, the translated transcripts for the 22 October meeting have been posted (see them here <https://community.icann.org/x/HSnxAg> ). Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
by Brenden Kuerbis Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

I agree we need to simplify and generalize these draft principles. Hopefully this will allow us to quickly move on to actual proposal development. Following the discussions here, it seems the following would suffice as a guide to creating a proposal that ensures accountability: <principles> Independence - any proposal must ensure that the IANA functions operator be independent of TLD policy processes. Its role is to implement changes in accordance with TLD policy agreed through the relevant policy process; Separability - any proposal must ensure the ability to 1) separate the IANA functions from the current operator if warranted, and 2) to convene a process for selecting a new operator. Separability should persist through any future transfers of the IANA function(s); [Note: The NTIA's current contract already requires such separation] Transparency - any proposal must ensure that delegation or redelegation decisions implemented by the IANA functions operator and the rational for those decisions should be made public or at least be subject to an independent scrutiny as part of an ex-post assessment of service performance. <end principles> For me, these are the basics that are needed. While SLAs certainly need to be defined and referred to (e.g., what conditions warrant that the IANA function be separated from the operator?), I'm not certain we need them in principles. And while I understand the appeal of appeals, I think what we really want is some guarantee that the IANA functions operator follows exactly what is determined by policy (and that that process is fully accountable, has appeals, etc. - but this is another battle). Happy to see these revised, etc. I include the current draft principles language below for comparison. --------------------------------------- Dr Brenden Kuerbis iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > Mwendwa, > > > > Regarding your first question, let me first say that I don’t see > ‘bottom-up’ as a cliché. Secondly, it is a fundamental principle of policy > development. I think it is important to note that the principle is not > saying that IANA functions are operated in a bottom-up way but rather that > the IANA functions operator’s role is to implement changes according to > such policies. As I see it, the essence of this principle is not that > policy development must be bottom-up but rather that “the IANA functions > operator should be independent of the policy processes”. That said, is > the term ‘bottom-up’ essential to the principle? No. And I think that is > probably your point. I personally don’t have any problem leaving > ‘bottom-up’ in the statement but I don’t think removing it if the group > wants to do that would detract from the principle. > > > > If we want to keep the principle short and to the point, we could delete > the second sentence. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva > *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:59 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles > > > > *Independence of policy from IANA*: the IANA funtions operator should > be independent of the policy processes. Its role is to implement changes > in accordance with policy agreed through the relevant bottom up policy > process [Note: this does not pre-suppose any model for separation of the > policy and IANA roles. The current contract already requires such > separation]; > > > > Is bottom up a cliche we want to see in our principles? > > > > *Diversity of IANA’s Customers:* > *For ccTLDs,* the IANA should provide a service without requiring a > contract and should respect the diversity of agreements and arrangements in > place for ccTLDs. In particular, the national policy authority or > legislation (related to the ccTLD operator) should be respected and no > additional requirements should be imposed unless it is directly and > demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the DNS. > > > > "unless it is directly and demonstrably linked to global security, > stability and resilience of the DNS" > > Is there any example of a policy that can be implemented at the ccTLD > level that can threaten the DNS? > > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: twitter.com/lordmwesh > > "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on > higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson > > > > On 5 November 2014 20:40, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > > I agree 100% with Avri. Separability has to be a principle, otherwise we > have failed the accountability test. > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:16 PM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles > > > > Hi, > > While actual separation and the means of implementing that separation may > be solutions, I am strongly of the opinion that the potential to separate > MUST be a principle any solution is built on. It may never be exercised, > but it would be unacceptable for there to be a solution that prohibited or > did not otherwise allow any possible future separation of the function from > ICANN. > > This is one of several principles I feel I must personally argue for > persistently, and without which any solution would be unsatisfactory. > > avri > > On 05-Nov-14 10:45, Guru Acharya wrote: > > Avri, > > > > While I agree that separability should be a part of the solution, I don't > > think it can be made a principle. > > > > There are many who want IANA to perpetually reside in ICANN. They believe > > that self regulation will ensure accountability and that the need for > > separability does not exist. > > > > Therefore, separability may be a component of your solution rather than a > > principle for all solutions. > > > > Regards, > > Guru > > On 5 Nov 2014 04:00, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Comments: > > > > a. *Oversight, accountability and transparency*: the service > > should be accountable and transparent. > > > > > > I see no reason to include the term 'oversight' here. > > > > i. *Independence of oversight*: Oversight > > should be independent of the IANA functions operator and should assure the > > accountability of the operator to the (inclusive) global multi-stakeholder > > community; > > > > > > I recommend removing this as a principle for the following reasons: > > > > a. I do not think oversight is a principle, but one possible solution to > > the accountability issue. > > b. if 'oversight' is a component of the solution, I do not understand how > > it is independent of the stakeholders to whom ICANN is also accountable, so > > the notion of 'Independence' is not a principle I understand in this case. > > Yes any possible oversight mechanism should be independent of ICANN > > corporate, but I do believe it is accountable to the same stakeholders as > > is ICANN. > > > > I think we need a specific principle on accountability in this section: > > > > Accountability: Post transition accountability on the IANA Stewardship > > function should be to the Internet stakeholder community. > > > > I also think we need to add a principle called separability > > > > Separability: In the event that the ICANN corporation, or any of its > > subsidies, remains responsible for the IANA functions after the transition > > of stewardship, it should remain possible for a well formed review and > > contracting granting authority to reassign the IANA function to a new IANA > > service provider(s). The power of removing the function to a different > > operator should persist through any future transfers of the the IANA > > function(s) > > > > Under (c.) I recommend that we include the principle that service levels > > be subject to independent audit, with results published for review by the > > Internet community on an annual basis. > > > > thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > > 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 > > >

5 4

Proposed Agenda for Thursday 13 November
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Hi all, Below is the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday 13 November (14:00-16:00 UTC): Proposed Agenda for Thursday call 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Notes from last meeting, review of action items and project plan 3. Status on work subgroups -- Subgroup 1, 2A, 2B -- Subgroup 2C -- Subgroup 3 4. Update on F2F meeting agenda 5. Any other business 6. Summary of action items and agreed items

4 5