November 2014 - CWG-Stewardship

Fwd: [latinoamericann] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN
by Erick Iriarte Ahon Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

How This affects our working Group? Erick Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > Fecha: 12 de noviembre de 2014, 21:46:47 GMT-6 > Para: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > Asunto: [latinoamericann] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN > Responder a: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > > Nota: rescato este párrafo y pido comentarios > > "A U.S. federal court has agreed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that the country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are not property subject to attachment. " > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > A U.S. federal court has agreed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that the country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are not property subject to attachment. > > Claimants filed writs of attachment to seize from ICANN, the ccTLDs for Iran (.IR), Syria (.SY) and North Korea (.KP), (as well as internationalized top-level domains in non-ASCII characters for Iran and Syria) in order to satisfy judgments the claimants obtained in US courts against these countries. > > ICANN sought to quash the writs of attachment citing ICANN's technical coordination role in the domain name system (DNS) and arguing that ccTLDs are not subject to attachment. > > "We are pleased that the court ruled in our favor on the grounds that the ccTLDs are not property, subject to attachment", said John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. "The court's ruling demonstrates a technical understanding of the DNS, and the role of ccTLDs in the single, global, interoperable Internet. > > To read the U.S. District Court ruling, go here: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-q… [PDF, 346 KB] > > To read ICANN's legal filings, go here: > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en > > To read the original "Writs of Attachment," go here: > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1 > > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community LatinoamerICANN. > > View this contribution on the web site > > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of LatinoamerICANN. > > Reply to sender | Unsubscribe >

1 0

[IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Revised Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract
by Allan MacGillivray Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Please find attached a revised draft triage (CWG RFP 2C) of the IANA Functions Contract. The first document is the triage itself. I have revised the categories for the triage to put more focus on 'things we need to talk about soon'. In fact there are now four categories: A Provisions that may be important to the choice of the overall proposal, so they may need to be discussed early in the process, for example intellectual property. B. Provisions which likely need to be retained in a future arrangement to which NTIA will not be a party but which need not be reviewed early in the development of a transition proposal, for example the audit provisions; C. Provisions that need not be retained as they are specific to US government contracting practices, for example H.16 "Certification Regarding Terrorist Financing". D. Provisions that are out of the CWGs scope: numbers and protocol parameters. In the second document, I have put all of the provisions that fall into the "A" category above and have also grouped them into categories. Overall, this is a very subjective exercise and many may debate the categories I have chosen and how the provisions have been grouped and I of course invite your comments. That being said, I think that the real value of these documents is that they make the NTIA contract much more accessible - the 65 page contract has been reduced to 5 pages in the first document and the priority issues have been reduced to 3 pages in the second. Allan

2 1

IANA CWG & ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

All, This IANA CWG clearly comprises hard work and will inevitably bring out some strongly held views in critical areas of the discussion. In the light of the potential for such strength of conviction, the co-chairs feel it is timely to remind all of us of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior in this type of work. We have included a link to and copy of the text below. Please ensure you are familiar with these Expected Standards of Behavior and that you meet them at all times. Thank-you. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr IANA CWG Co-Chairs -- https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior Adopted 6 May 2012 Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process, including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils, undertake to: * Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the values contained in the Bylaws. * Adhere to ICANN's conflict of interest policies. * Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. * Act in a reasonable, objective and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment. * Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. * Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. * Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. * Support the maintenance of robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that policy development and decision-making processes will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders. * Conduct themselves in accordance with ICANN policies. * Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use. * Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process. * Promote ethical and responsible behavior. Ethics and integrity are essential, and ICANN expects all stakeholders to behave in a responsible and principled way.

1 0

Agenda for F2F Meeting on 19-20 November
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Hi all, Below is the proposed agenda for the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 November. I've also updated the Wiki page with the latest version: https://community.icann.org/x/iy3xAg Face to Face Meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 November DAY 0: Arrive Tuesday 18 November Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 18:00 20:00. DAY 1: Wednesday 19 November (9:00 18:00) 08:30 08:45: Coffee 08:45 - 09:30: Introduction & Review of agenda & Timeline 09:30 10:40: Principles 10:40 11:00: Coffee Break 11:00 13:00: Review of 1, 2A, 2B 13:00 14:00: Lunch 14:00 15:40: RFP3 15:40 16:00: Coffee Break 16:00 18:00: RFP3 End at 18:00 no planned meal/gathering DAY 2: Thursday 20 November (8:00 17:30) 07:30 08:00: Coffee 08:00 09:40: Update / Revisit RFP 1, 2A, 2B & Schedule for the day 09:40 10:00: Coffee Break 10:00 12:00: RFP3 12:00 13:00: Lunch 13:00 16:30:[1] <#_ftn1> RFP3 (continued) & Way Forward for RFP 4 16:30 - 17:30: Wrap Up Session & Review of Action Items End at 17:30 Departure that evening (or Friday 21 November if needed) Additional Notes: Dates: 19-20 November (2 full day meeting) Location: Frankfurt (Le Meridien Parkhotel) Remote participation available (virtual meeting room, phone conference line) For a list of confirmed in-person attendees, please see here <https://community.icann.org/x/mC7xAg> . [1] <#_ftnref1> There will be an ongoing Stakeholder Call <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-10-28-en> on Thursday, 20 November at 15:00 - 16:30. The recording of this call will be available. To learn more about the context of the call, see this blog <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monitoring-the-health-of-the-organization> .

1 0

Statement by JNC on IANA transition
by Milton L Mueller Nov. 11, 2014

Nov. 11, 2014

With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html

5 7

Draft of Principles
by Lise Fuhr Nov. 11, 2014

Nov. 11, 2014

Dear All, As per the request from last week's call we have produced a list of the principles from the Charter of the CWG and the ICG (attached). Also as discussed last week Martin Boyle and I have been elaborating a set of principles and/or the criteria against which we would review the proposals the CWG will be developing, in order to ensure that the proposal takes into account the different aspects that need to be covered. The draft of those principles and/or criteria are also attached to this email for your consideration. Given this is not directly in line with the work required to develop proposals I am suggesting that these should only be discussed on the mailing list for time being. We will allocate time at the Face to Face meeting in Germany for us to consider the latest version of these as they will have evolved from discussions on the list. Best regards, Lise

10 14

kpritz@thedna.org
by Kurt Pritz Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

kpritz(a)thedna.org

1 0

Final list of F2F attendees
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

Hello all, As you know, the deadline for confirming attendance for the F2F meeting was Friday, 7 November. The final list of in-person attendees is available here <https://community.icann.org/x/mC7xAg> and copied below for your convenience. Once the agenda is finalized (this week), I will circulate call details per agenda block so that remote participants can follow and recordings can be made available almost immediately. Members: 1. Wanawit Ahkuputra (GAC); 2. Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC); 3. Donna Austin (GNSO); 4. Graeme Bunton (GNSO); 5. Fatima Cambronero (ALAC); 6. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 7. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 8. Lise Fuhr (ccTLD); 9. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO); 11. Staffan Jonson (ccNSO); 12. Paul Kane (ccTLD); 13. Elise Lindeberg (GAC); 14. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO); 15. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 16. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 17. Greg Shatan (GNSO) 18. Amr Elsadr (Alternate for Avri Doria GNSO) 19. Alan Greenberg (Alternate for Fouad Bajwa ALAC) Participants: 1. Martin Boyle (ccNSO, member ICG) 2. Camino Manjon-Sierra (GAC) 3. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO, member ICG) 4. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 5. Matthew Shears 6. Jorg Schweiger 7. Peter Van Roste (ccNSO) 8. Boyoung Kim (GAC) 9. Minjung Park (ccNSO) 10. Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO) Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG RFP2A ccTLD Tables
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

Here's the attachment. Sorry about forgetting to attach it. Thanks to Stephanie for letting me know. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: CWG RFP2A ccTLD Tables Importance: High As promised in our CWG call last Tuesday, here is the draft of the CWG tables at the beginning of Proposal Section 2A that was missing in the version of the Section 2A proposal that I sent to the full CWG list last Monday. Special thanks to Bernie and Bart for preparing this. Please review it and provide any comments and/or suggested edits. As previously stated, proposed edits should ultimately be provided using the Microsoft Word redlining functions on the document itself, saved with your name added to the file name. If you would like to ask questions or make comments before proposing specific edits, feel free to do that on the CWG list but understand that edits will not be made to the document until a redlined version of the file is received. It is planned to send a second version of the RFP Section 2A Proposal to the list early next week that will show all of the edits made to date using the redlining function. We are doing our best with lots of Staff help to incorporate all of the edits that have been confirmed in our call last Tuesday and on the list since then. If you have edits to the CWG RFP2A ccTLD Tables only, you may just redline them in that document and send it to the CWG list. To be included in Version 2 of the Section 2A Proposal, edits must be received today; they can be submitted after today but I cannot guarantee that they will be included in Version 2. I am sure a Version 3 will follow in a week or so. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Chuck

1 0

CWG RFP2A ccTLD Tables
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

As promised in our CWG call last Tuesday, here is the draft of the CWG tables at the beginning of Proposal Section 2A that was missing in the version of the Section 2A proposal that I sent to the full CWG list last Monday. Special thanks to Bernie and Bart for preparing this. Please review it and provide any comments and/or suggested edits. As previously stated, proposed edits should ultimately be provided using the Microsoft Word redlining functions on the document itself, saved with your name added to the file name. If you would like to ask questions or make comments before proposing specific edits, feel free to do that on the CWG list but understand that edits will not be made to the document until a redlined version of the file is received. It is planned to send a second version of the RFP Section 2A Proposal to the list early next week that will show all of the edits made to date using the redlining function. We are doing our best with lots of Staff help to incorporate all of the edits that have been confirmed in our call last Tuesday and on the list since then. If you have edits to the CWG RFP2A ccTLD Tables only, you may just redline them in that document and send it to the CWG list. To be included in Version 2 of the Section 2A Proposal, edits must be received today; they can be submitted after today but I cannot guarantee that they will be included in Version 2. I am sure a Version 3 will follow in a week or so. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. 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