October 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

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

Oct. 3, 2015

At 02/10/2015 11:08 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >[...] >The proposal may be addressing a different issue, but I think both >of you may be missing the point. Unless we know whether there is a >contractual or other kind of "agreement" between PTI and Verisign, >we do not know what arrangements will ensure that PTI's root zone >changes are implemented. If the ICANN-Verisign proposal does not >address that issue, it does not meet the requirements of the CWG >transition proposal. > >And we cannot simply say, "that is for NTIA to solve." The future >relationship between PTI and Verisign is not something that can be >addressed by modifying the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement >(unless of course you want NTIA to continue in its oversight role in >some way). I know I prefer that the NTIA disengages completely, but I have no idea if that is indeed what they are planning for the moment of transition. >All NTIA can do is get itself out of the way by ending its authorization role. Or they could simply amend the existing agreement as agreement as per 1150, Section 2a. >But we need to know what binds Verisign to implement PTI's root zone >modifications, and whether ICANN is the contracting party, whether >ICANN can end the contract and take over the function itself, etc. >Those questions are, I guess we agree, not answered in the proposal. >So I would recommend answering in that way. > >--MM

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Milton, 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. That intent may not be clear in reading it, but that is the case. It is a far more complex implementation that envisioned by DT-F, but that does not alter the intent. Alan At 02/10/2015 10:55 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > I don't think that the ICANN-Verisign proposal could meet that requirement > > because it is beyond their control. They are both dependent on action by > > NTIA. > >I do not understand what you are saying here, Chuck. NTIA asked >ICANN and Verisign for a proposal regarding post-transition RZM. >They could propose whatever they liked. Yes, they depend on action >by NTIA to implement it, but the ICG is asking whether the proposal >meets requirements. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:55 PM > > To: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG > > Questions > > > > As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, > I think the > > ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one essential requirement of > > the DTF. > > We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA > > Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. > > As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the > ICANN-Verisign proposal. > > We have no idea what kind of an agreement, if any, would exist between > > Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls away, nor do we have a more generic > > notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate. > > > > --MM > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- > > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM > > > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to > > > ICG Questions > > > > > > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal: > > > > > > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group: > > > > > > >The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of > > > >Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or > > > >during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as > > > >few changes at the same time as possible. > > > > > > > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme. > > > > > > The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a > > > relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways > > > to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > > > >Dear All, > > > > > > > >In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG > > > >Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the > > > >attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the > > > >ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for > > > >CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share > > > >your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the > > > >CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > > > >Marika > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >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 > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Implementation Action Items
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear all, I apologize for the delay, but I have finally reviewed the implementation document per request on yesterday¹s call. I have also verified that the RZM item and the item on PTI board have been cross-checked. Should we add an implementation action item for the setup of the Standing Review Committee for substantive changes to the RZMS? Please review and provide feedback, Grace

2 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that point in time). The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail. The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the proposal is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the proposal did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve. Alan At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I >think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one >essential requirement of the DTF. >We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA >Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. >As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the >ICANN-Verisign proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, >if any, would exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls >away, nor do we have a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate. > >--MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM > > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG > > Questions > > > > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal: > > > > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group: > > > > >The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of > > >Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or > > >during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as > > >few changes at the same time as possible. > > > > > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme. > > > > The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making > a relatively > > simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But > > yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > > >Dear All, > > > > > >In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG > > >Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the > > >attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG > > >questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for > > >CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share > > >your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the > > >CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Marika > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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

4 3

For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Marika Konings Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear All, In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. Thanks, Marika

7 8

Schedule through Dublin
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear all, To get us to Dublin, we have three more meetings/calls scheduled: Meeting #68 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/x/IZ1YAw> Tuesday 6 October 17:00 - 19:00 Meeting #69 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/x/JJ1YAw> Thursday 8 October 11:00 - 13:00 Meeting #70 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/x/Jp1YAw> Tuesday 13 October17:00 - 19:00 ICANN 54 Meeting in Dublin ( 18 - 22 October) + CWG-Stewardship Working Session Wednesday, 21 October 09:30-11:00 (local time UTC +1) Also, attached please find a document with two types of schedules for the ICANN54 meeting in Dublin (one list form and one block form). This is a curated schedule of all the sessions related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability efforts. You will see that some sessions are still to be determined (TBD) we will confirm the schedule as soon as possible. Finally, you can find the full ICANN54 meeting schedule posted here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin2015/schedule-table. Best, Grace

1 0

Notes from Meeting #67
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 1, 2015

Oct. 1, 2015

Dear all, The recordings, transcripts and other related material from the call will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/PZlYAw. Notes from the meeting are below for your review. CWG-Stewardship meeting #67 -- Thursday 1 October at 11:00 UTC Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Schedule 3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability 5. Update on legal work 6. AoB Notes: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on audio only 1. Opening Remarks 2 calls per week right now, but may not be needed. 2. Implementation Schedule * Chuck prepared a document for the group to review * There is also an implementation list sent Jonathan to the CWG list (not presented on screen in AC room) * ICG would like this shared this week. * This could be shared and then updated. View this as a 'work-in-progress' ACTIONS: * Action(staff): read and review implementation document * Action(CWG): read and review implementation document (24 hour window) * Action(Jonathan): send implementation document to ICG at approx. 13:00 UTC on Friday 2 Oct. Include communication that this document is work in progress/ not final. * Action:add an implementation action item to the inventory regarding RZM. * Action:cross-check question 8 from the ICG against the implementation list. 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 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability 2-Day LA F2F Meeting 5. Update on legal work * Bylaws drafting -- no update this week * Previous action on question #9 for ICG * Billing -- lawyers are reluctant to have full detail of billing shared publicly. They are ok with the Chairs or Client Committee having confidential access to the fine billing. Can the CWG trust that the Client Committee will review these bills on a confidential basis? Any concerns or objections? None recorded. 6. AoB Action(staff): resend meeting schedule

1 0

DRAFT Inventory of Implementation Action items
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 1, 2015

Oct. 1, 2015

All, Please see attached for the DRAFT inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameter OCs which Lise & I understand was recently submitted to the ICG. This seems to me to provide a useful cross reference for us as we work to prepare the same from the Names Community / CWG. Thanks, Jonathan

1 0