October 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Questions from the ICG - batch 2
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear CWG, As indicated in my previous email, here is a second batch of questions from the ICG based on comments received during our public comment period. We have continued the numbering of the questions from the first batch. We do not expect to have any further questions for you at present although we may want to follow up upon receiving responses to these and from the other operational communities. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CWG requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. Some of the questions below include requests or suggestions for amendments to the text of the CWG proposal as reflected in Part 1 of the combined proposal. The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal if these amendments are made. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. PTI 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. 8) Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected to the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase. Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing “and” with “who” as follows: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” 9) Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.” Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point. Scope 10) The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions. Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 11) Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 12) Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes. Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

4 9

CWG response on .ARPA (Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG)
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear all, Some time ago, I was saying that responding to the ICG question related to .ARPA in the manner we did may not be appropriate. Below is a draft response of CRISP that clearly prefers that it's related .ARPA strings be immune of CSC/IFR processes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> Date: 7 Oct 2015 23:02 Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> Cc: Dear Alissa, Thank you and the ICG for your efforts in reviewing the public comments and the continued work on the combined proposal, as well as on the overall process. Please see below the draft response from the CRISP Team. We will have the CRISP Team call at UTC13:00 8th Oct to make a final confirmation, and will get back to you by UTC23:59 9th Oct, in case we indentify any changes needed. The responses are based on the Number Community proposal and the CRISP Team submission during public comment of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, therefore we wouldn't expect fundamental changes but there may be some additional points. 1) Yes we are willing to commit to coordinate with the other communities, as we have expressed in the Number Community Proposal: III.A. "the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process." The Number Community is willing to talk to the other communities about what coordination mechanisms, existing or new ones, that will be necessary for this. 2) Any of the elements managed by the RIRs and covered by the Number Community Proposal, including the "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" should be managed and reviewed according to the Number Community proposal. The Number Community has its own review processes for this. As described in I.D of the Number Community proposal, "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are delegated to the IANA by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and “sub-delegations within this hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address allocation practices” (RFC 3172). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in its role as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, administers these zones as “agreed technical work items” per the IETF-IANA MoU. This work is outside the scope of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contract. We should not make changes to this existing arrangements, which are not a part of the NTIA contract. Further, Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry. Collectively these registries are referred to as the IANA Number Registries.According to our understanding the CSC and IFR processes has its scope focused on the names related function. Therefore, we strongly believe that "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are to be excluded from the CSC and IFR processes. As such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. Izumi and Nurani on behalf of the CRISP Team On 2015/09/25 7:04, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Dear CRISP team, > > Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CRISP team. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CRISP team requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. > > The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the CRISP team may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. > > 1) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the numbers operational community provide such a commitment? I f so, t he ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. > > 2) Please could you say whether or not the numbers community intends to participate in the CSC and IFR processes proposed by the names community. If the numbers community will participate, then will the participation be limited to the .ARPA domain name, or will it be broader? If the .ARPA domain name is excluded from the CSC and IFR processes, would that affect whether or not the numbers community participates? > > Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. > > Thanks, > > > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

6 12

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hello, I guess this is the document Jonathan was referring to during the last CWG call. Perhaps someone that was on the call could clarify item 3 on the implementation timeline(Contract with root zone maintainer). Considering that the timeline is set to run between October 2015 and march 2016, is this the parallel process referred to by NTIA or are we to expect another? Was the process of developing the contract clarified during the call. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: 7 Oct 2015 08:04 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials To: "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Dear colleagues, > > During the call yesterday I mentioned that we would be providing updates > on our progress in two different calls : > - the transition facilitation program call, which was attended by ntia > (Larry Strickling), ICANN (Fadi, Steve Crocker amongst others) and leaders > of the various transition related groups (numbering, ietf, cwg, ...) > - a community leader call, attended by so/ac and constituency leaders. > > You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN and > presented during the calls. > > I have insisted in our group's strong commitment and involvement, and > introduced the potential timelines we have started discussing. > > A couple of key points from these calls are : > - the status of the transition program as a whole is qualified as "solid > orange bordering red "(based on the 30 sept 2016 deadline) > - the community leader call will reconvene on Monday to assess whether > extra time could be devoted in Dublin to advancing our work effectively, > given the very high priority. > > Best, > > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > > > *Objet:* *Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials* > > Dear SO, AC, SG, C, RALO Chairs, Chairs of the CCWG, CWG, ICG, ICANN Board > Members: > > Thank you again for your participation on today's call. > > As requested, attached are the slides presented today and the chat history > for your reference. > > In a separate note, I will suggest a call early next week for us to > continue a discussion on the Dublin schedule. > > Best regards, David > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, > Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive(a)icann.org > www.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
by Marika Konings Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached an updated version which includes the proposed addition to paragraph 113 as suggested by Sidley for question 6, the edit to question 13 as suggested by Chuck and noting that the response to question 1 is still under discussion (if those that have been discussing this question on the list have a proposal to revise the draft response to reflect the feedback received, please share the proposed response with the list). Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday 1 October 2015 18:13 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Dear all, Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for your review. We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call: 3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses * ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions. * On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal. * On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process. * On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD members/participants. * On PTI question #6: complete. no comments * On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional clarfications listed in action item. * On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with implementation. * On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers * On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments * On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be involved in process. Summary of current status on ICG questions * Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13 * Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12 ACTIONS * Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by Alan) * Action(staff): update question #2 per notes * Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input received) where appropriate * Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG." * Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board. * Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers * Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13 Best, Grace

5 6

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #68 -- 6 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 68 on 6 October 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/IZ1YAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action item: Chairs to send implementation action list to ICG, noting this is an initial draft with updated / formatted version to follow by Friday Action item: Staff to format implementation action list so it is comparable to ICG format prior to Dublin Action item: All to send any other items that need to be added the the implementation action items by Thursday at the latest Action item: Chairs to share implementation action item list with ICANN staff working on implementation Action item: Staff to update response to question 1 as discussed - CWG-Stewardship to review. Action item: Staff to update response to Q7 as discussed. Action item: Chairs to confirm to Sharon that her physical presence will not be required but that she should be available to participate remotely at a minimum in the Wednesday CWG-Stewarship session. Action item: Staff to cancel Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting. Notes Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect room. Seun is on audio only. 1. Opening Remarks * Aim to keep the call to 1 hour, if possible * CWG-Stewardship currently has meetings scheduled for twice a week with option to cancel if meeting is determined not to be necesary * Will review at the end of the meeting to determine whether Thursday's call is needed 2. Update on Implementation Schedule * Other communities have already responded to implementation inventory from ICG with clear indication of who is responsible for what * Draft inventory has been circulated on the list - it is more detailed than what the group discussed on last call * Comparison foreseen between this inventory and the one of ICG to ensure that our Implementation Inventory in the same format as those of the other two operational communities so that they are directly comparable. Chairs to share list as initial overview of implementation items - noting that other items may get added over tiime, followed by request to staff to format it in the same way as ICG inventory. * ICG needs a consolidated list * Call earlier today with SO/AC/SG/C Chairs as well as CWG/CCWG leadership to discuss current status * ICANN staff has already commenced development of implementation plan Action item: Chairs to send implementation action list to ICG, noting this is an initial draft with updated / formatted version to follow by Friday Action item: Staff to format implementation action list so it is comparable to ICG format prior to Dublin Action item: All to send any other items that need to be added the the implementation action items by Thursday at the latest Action item: Chairs to share implementation action item list with ICANN staff working on implementation 3. ICG Questions * Deadline is 7 October * Update version circulated earlier today which reflects proposed changes. * Responses 3-5 approved * Response 9 has been updated to reflect input from Sidley and CWG-Stewardship discussion. Approved. * Responses 10-12 approved * Response 13 was updated to reflect small edit. Approved. * Response 2 approved. * Discussion on list concerning question 1: Proposed approach by Chuck: 1. I think that the first part of our response as copied here is fine: "The Verisign/ICANN proposal is not a vehicle for amending or replacing the Cooperative Agreement. Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses only paragraph 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship's knowledge, been addressed." 2. The co-chairs should send a letter to the NTIA as soon as possible seeking clarification. I attached some proposed elements of such a letter. 3. We should add to our response by noting that we have sent some questions to the NTIA. 4. We should discuss whether there are other actions that we should take pending responses from NTIA. * Concerns expressed in public comments to ICG proposal if ICANN would be RZM as some feel strongly that role should be kept separately. CWG-Stewardship proposel does foresee public consultation / input should any changes be proposed. * Consider asking written clarification from NTIA? * Consider leaving first paragraph the same and replace second paragraph from 'addressed' with reference to statement from Larry from meeting earlier today? 'an arrangement must be in place. We understand that in a separate and parallel process the following is occuring...' * Should no agreement be reached on question 1, the other responses could already be submitted to the ICG noting that work is still ongoing on question 1. Action item: Staff to update response to question 1 as discussed - CWG-Stewardship to review. * Larry Stricklyn confirmed on call earlier today that what is in CWG-Stewardship proposal concerning RZM is sufficient. ICANN Staff confirmed it is working on minimal changes in relation to the transition and future changes would be subject to community input. * Question 7 - why were changes made to original response? As a result of discussions during last meeting. Mandatory does not necessarily match what is currently in the proposal. Referencing CCWG mechanisms may not be helpful for ICG at this stage. Can response be more firm that IFR/Special IFR recommendations are expected to be followed? Introduce a sentence in between: 'the sense of the CWG-Stewardship is that there is the expectation that such recommendations would be implemented'. Action item: Staff to update response to Q7 as discussed. * Questions emerged from public comment, not necessarily the ICG. 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability * A lot of work currently going on * CWG-Stewardship needs to be vigilant that the CCWG-Accountability work continues to meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements. This should be on track as a result of cross-CWG co-ordination (chairs, legal advisors, etc.) 5. Update on legal work * Sidley provided input on ICG question 9 * Written update requested on status of bylaw drafting * Sharon has requested whether her presence is needed in Dublin. Might be helpful if CCWG would decide to change model. Participation could also be done by email / phone. Take note of time difference. * Support for having Sharon available by phone / email as needed Action item: Chairs to confirm to Sharon that her physical presence will not be required but that she should be available to participate remotely at a minimum in the Wednesday CWG-Stewarship session. 6. AOB Proposal to cancel Thursday's meeting Action item: Staff to cancel Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting. 7. Closing Remarks CWG-Stewardship meeting confirmed for Dublin on Wednesday from 9.00 - 11.00 local time. Followed by an implementation meeting later that afternoon.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2015

Oct. 5, 2015

At 03/10/2015 07:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >Milton is correct in that this is an issue that is both critical to >the transition and not addressed by the CWG, and I believe not >addressable solely by the CWG. > >MM: I still don't understand why people here are asserting that this >I "not addressable solely by the CWG." >Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships are NOT part of the NTIA >Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. >Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships ARE one of the most critical >parts of the IANA transition. >Unless you want to have the US government involved permanently, >those relationships have to be designed and set out by this CWG, >based on its already-developed model (ICANN spinning off PTI into a >separate subsidiary and Verisign staying in its current role as RZM). What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed. > >There are a two obvious possible ways the issue can be addressed: > >1. The NTIA amends the Cooperative Agreement to require Verisign to >publish changes submitted to it by IANA. Perhaps IANA would have to >be added as a signatory to that agreement. > >MM: In this "option," which I would contend is not a real option, >the U.S. government becomes a permanent part of the contractual and >administrative situation surrounding Root Zone maintenance. I submit >that that is not acceptable to the world. Most of us have been >operating under the assumption that the transition would end the >privileged role of one government and turn the whole thing over to >the 'global multistakeholder community.' If it is the USG, and only >the USG, that requires Verisign to respect PTI, then we have not >kept that promise. > >None can be done without NTIA taking some action > >MM: We have all known, from day one, that NTIA and NTIA alone can >modify its Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. That does not mean, >however, that CWG cannot come up with a proposal as to how ICANN and >PTI relate to the Root Zone maintainer in the future. If the CWG >doesn't do that job, it hasn't done its job. Once the CWG does that, >the NTIA will know more about how to modify its Cooperative Agreement > >I believe that the way forward is for the CWG Co-Chairs to contact >the NTIA and ask for either information on how they plan to proceed >so that we can take the appropriate steps (if any), or to confirm >that the issue is, for the moment, fully under their control and >that they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the Root >Zone Maintainer is properly contracted and instructed >post-transition. With that information in hand, the CWG can confirm >to the ICG that 1150, Section 2 is under control. > >MM: I don't agree. Again, you are placing responsibility for >designing a critical part of the post-transition root zone >management regime in the hands of the NTIA. It does not belong there. The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature. Alan

4 7

Responses to ICG Questions
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 5, 2015

Oct. 5, 2015

Dear all, Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for your review. We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call: 3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses * ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions. * On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal. * On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process. * On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD members/participants. * On PTI question #6: complete. no comments * On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional clarfications listed in action item. * On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with implementation. * On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers * On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments * On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be involved in process. Summary of current status on ICG questions * Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13 * Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12 ACTIONS * Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by Alan) * Action(staff): update question #2 per notes * Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input received) where appropriate * Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG." * Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board. * Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers * Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13 Best, Grace

6 11

Agenda for Meeting #68 (Tuesday 6 October at 17:00 UTC)
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 4, 2015

Oct. 4, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for Tuesday's CWG-Stewardship meeting (scheduled for 17.00 UTC). Supporting documents for the different items will be circulated in separate emails to allow for edits and updates. Proposed Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Meeting on Tuesday 6 October 1. Opening Remarks 2. Update on Implementation Schedule 3. ICG Questions 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability 5. Update on legal work 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 3, 2015

Oct. 3, 2015

Milton is correct in that this is an issue that is both critical to the transition and not addressed by the CWG, and I believe not addressable solely by the CWG. There are a two obvious possible ways the issue can be addressed: 1. The NTIA amends the Cooperative Agreement to require Verisign to publish changes submitted to it by IANA. Perhaps IANA would have to be added as a signatory to that agreement. 2. The NTIA cancels the Cooperative Agreement effective the time of transition and instructs ICANN/PTI to enter into an agreement with Verisign prior to that time. Perhaps there are other options. None can be done without NTIA taking some action, and to what extent ICANN/PTI need to be involved will depend on how the NTIA chooses to proceed. What it decides may well be influences by political issues in Washington. I believe that the way forward is for the CWG Co-Chairs to contact the NTIA and ask for either information on how they plan to proceed so that we can take the appropriate steps (if any), or to confirm that the issue is, for the moment, fully under their control and that they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the Root Zone Maintainer is properly contracted and instructed post-transition. With that information in hand, the CWG can confirm to the ICG that 1150, Section 2 is under control. Milton, I would be glad to attempt to address "requirements of [] multiple annexes of the transition proposal", but could the you or the ICG please be more specific. That reference covers 76 pages of text in the ICG document. Alan At 02/10/2015 05:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >All: > >I have looked over the proposed response to RZM question 1 and would >have to reject what is proposed and offer this alternative. > >No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of >1150 Sections 2 and multiple annexes of the transition proposal, >because it only addresses the NTIA authorization role and does not >address the nature of the agreement that would be required to ensure >that PTI's zone file modifications are implemented by Verisign. > >The current draft asserts that only the NTIA can address the >post-transition relationship between Verisign and PTI and ICANN. >This is incorrect. It is true that only NTIA can modify the >Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. But future Verisign-ICANN or >PTI-Verisign relationships, contractual or otherwise, are not part >of the cooperative agreement. NTIA cannot be suddenly given the >responsibility of determining how ICANN, PTI and the RZM relate in >the future, any more than we can ask it to define the nature of the >CSC or the board structure of PTI. This seems obvious to me, perhaps >others can explain why they think this critical part of the >transition cannot be addressed by the CWG. I also find it >interesting how the proposed response simply ignores the "multiple >annexes of part 1" aspect of the request. > >I realize that as an ICG member, being part of the body that posed >the question, I am also proposing a response. But I am forced to do >that because the proposed response really does not answer the >question; indeed, it seems to be intent on avoiding it. And at this >stage in the game, we want to avoid another round of questions that >would inevitably occur if you fail to actually answer the question. > >--MM > > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad >Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:14 PM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions > >Dear all, > >Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses >to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for >your review. We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM >questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC >question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call: > >3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses > * ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the > document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions. > * On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal. > * On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve > substantial changes. So the answer includes, community > consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to > paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan > Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are > correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph > ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA > Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a > substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore > subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately > ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires > consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process. > * On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD > members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD > members/participants. > * On PTI question #6: complete. no comments > * On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community > Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this > out. Additional clarfications listed in action item. > * On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with > implementation. > * On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is > also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers > * On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments > * On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person > will be involved in process. > > > >Summary of current status on ICG questions > * Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13 > * Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12 >ACTIONS > * Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent > to list (by Alan) > * Action(staff): update question #2 per notes > * Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other > input received) where appropriate > * Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" > (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure > and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add > "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the > Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be > able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG." > * Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board. > * Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers > * Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13 > >Best, >Grace >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 3, 2015

Oct. 3, 2015

At 02/10/2015 05:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Yes, in theory ICANN and Verisign could put anything in any > document, but the > > proposal was explicitly addressing ONLY Paragraph 150, section 1 of the CWG > > report. > >So you agree that the answer to the ICG question should be something >like: "No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the >requirements of 1150 Sections 2 and 3 because it only addresses the >NTIA authorization role and does not address the nature of the >agreement that would be required to ensure that PTI's zone file >modifications are implemented by Verisign? > >It's worth recounting here that no one but, presumably, Verisign and >ICANN are aware of what was in the NTIA solicitation for the >proposal. So are you asserting that you have seen the solicitation >and know they were instructed only to address paragraph 150 section >1? Or are you inferring that based on its content? I have not seen the solicitation. Based on discussions with David Conrad, who was one of the people who worked on the response to the solicitation, I believe that the intent was very clearly just focused on section 1. Moreover the NTI-Versign Agreement is referenced in several of the Q&As appended to the proposal and clearly (in my mind) is being discussed as something separate from the solicitation and resultant proposal. Alan >The solicitation was never published. The published proposal says only that > >"NTIA has asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal as to how >best remove the NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone >management in a manner that maintains the security, stability and >resiliency of the Internet's domain name system." > >It says nothing about the CWG proposal, much less specific >paragraphs or sections.

1 0