November 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 18 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 18, 2015

Nov. 18, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 18 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/7bZYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Notes Objectives: * Good understanding of Xavier's presentation * Discuss whether or not DT-O thinks that the elements in the presentation are sufficient * What to present to the full CWG tomorrow FY17 Planning -- USG Transition presentation: * Expected impacts: creation of PTI; transfer of IANA operations into PTI; creation of new processes for IFR and CSC; and new accountability mechanisms * In Slide 5, reference to appendix is in the CWG-Stewardship proposal Discussion of the presentation * Change "no change" to "minimal change" Decide whether/how to share with CWG * Chuck to send to list in advance of call with cover note (make clear where to focus). * Xavier to present on the CWG call in first hour * DT-O group to guide discussion Next steps * Doodle for Wednesday next week and week after (include Xavier and Trang in poll) * Clarify purpose of next DT-O call and check via email whether Xavier and Trang are needed. Documents * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145645/FY17%20Planning%2… ansition%20151118.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1447859946000&api=v2> FY17 Planning - DT-O - USG transition 151118.pptx

1 0

Agenda for Meeting on 19 November at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear all, Here below is our agenda for the CWG-Stewardship Meeting on 19 November at 17:00 UTC. In preparation for the meeting, please take some time to review the draft Bylaws prepared by Sidley. We will invite Sidley to the meeting to present the document. Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks * Letter to Chartering Organizations (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-November/004487.html) 2. Implementation * DT-IPR (IANA IPR) * Update from ICANN Staff * DT-O (Budget) * DT-A (SLEs) 3. Bylaws * Introduction and overview of Sidley¹s draft (see attached) * Responding to questions for the CWG * Feed into CCWG once complete 4. CCWG &ICG * Update from Chairs' Coordination Call * Process for sign-off on dependencies * Separation process 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-IPR Meeting on 16 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-IPR Meeting on 16 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/QLpYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action item: ask ICANN for information on current practice and management of the IP to date (note, ICANN has not had to exercise external quality control to date as there is no licensee but only internal quality control) Notes . See document circulated by Greg prior to this meeting (see also <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXN…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXN…) . Remit is to come up with requirements and principles that CWG-Stewardship would use to determine what would be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks and domain names . Use those requirements and principles to evaluate potential owner. Only proposed candidate at this point in time is the IETF Trust. . Question 1: What should be the requirements of the Trust to ensure continued operations, stability and security of the IANA functions in the event of separation? Owner will not be operator so there needs to be a license, but also consider minimum requirements linked to an owner. Question 1, bullet #3 is key, but directions should also be followed prior to any possible separation. User of trademark is only one single user at this moment. IANA operator will be exclusively licensee following transition, but owner of trademark (trust) would also have certain obligations per trademark law. There is a need to not impede the continued operations (additional requirement). . Question 5: What does the DT propose to be the defining qualities of a neutral/independent trust that will serve in this role? Review of responses provided during last meeting which is a working draft which is open for refinement. Key requirement is #3 (responsive and responsible to three communities). Also considers cost issue (needs to have necessary funding to carry out these responsibilities & needs access to employee with experience (license manager) and outside trademark counsel). . What does 'neutral' mean: a) not captured by or under the sole control of the IANA Function Operator, b) towards the views of the three communities, c) should not be an IFO (what is believed to be the intent of the other operational communities), d) not dominated by any of the operational communities - needs equilibrium (could be established contractually). Broader definition of neutrality is already captured as part of other requirements (e.g. follow instructions of relevant communities), consider sticking to narrow definition here (not IFO). . Quality control has to meet the requirements / needs of all three communities. If any has any concern about how IANA is performing in relation to trademark, a mechanism needs to be in place to address such concerns. Could quality control also be outsourced? Certain amount of operational control could be sub-contracted for example to operational communities, but ultimate control/responsibility is with the trademark owner. Brand owner is required to exercise active quality control to meet minimum requirements. . IETF Trust will not change its governance structure - is not a practical option and not an expected outcome. If requirements cannot be met by IETF Trust it may be more efficient and effective to create a new trust or consider whether there are contractual arrangements that could be put in place to meet the requirements without changing the governance structure. If you would start from scratch you might actually have come up with a joint trust - but not feasible within current timeframe. . Under which circumstances, if any, would the trademark be taken away from the new owner (the trust)? Separate question to be considered at some point. . Consider eventually moving from this document to clearer principles and requirements. . Need to determine what quality control needs to be exercised to meet minimum obligations. . Next CWG-Stewardship meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Greg will review and update document to make it more user-friendly to look at principles and requirements to facilitate further input on the list. . Next DT-IPR call scheduled for next week, Tuesday 24 November at 21.00 UTC. Action item: ask ICANN for information on current practice and management of the IP to date (note, ICANN has not had to exercise external quality control to date as there is no licensee but only internal quality control)

1 0

FW: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

FYI below, per the action item from the call on 5 November. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:12 AM To: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net>, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp>, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet(a)viagenie.ca>, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle(a)thinkingcat.com>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>, Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship¹s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship¹s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs

2 1

Fwd: [client com] Draft CWG Bylaws
by Greg Shatan Nov. 12, 2015

Nov. 12, 2015

I am taking the liberty of forwarding these draft Bylaws to the full CWG. Greg Shatan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:52 AM Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Bylaws To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear Client Committee, Attached for the CWG’s review is a draft of the CWG bylaws. Best regards, Holly and Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-IPR Meeting on 9 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 10, 2015

Nov. 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-IPR Meeting on 9 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MLhYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action item: inquire with ICANN about whether they have liscensed the trademarks, and if so, under what provisions. Action item: Greg to share document that details the different trademark registrations Action Item: Send Doodle for 2 additional calls between Mon, Tues for next two weeks Notes DT-IRP meeting of 9 November 2015 The nearest thing to a "charter" we have is this statement, which appears in the document linked as number 5 below: With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet the detailed requirements and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated timelines. Notes 9/11 meeting: * Primary purpose of DT is to come up with principles and requirements and eventually recommendations to CWG-Stewardship in relation to IANA IPR (trademark registrations and domain names). * See document circulated by Greg ( <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXN…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXN…) * 3 US trademark registrations for the word IANA, for the IANA logo and for IANA with the full name. <http://iana.org/> IANA.org domain name, .net and .org versions are also owned by ICANN. Task is to spec a new home for these trademark registrations. * Question 1: what should be the requirements of the trust? Need to meet the requirement of continued operations, stability and security of the IANA functions in the event of separation. Needs to work now as well as at the time of possible separation. DT encouraged to provide input on what the requirements should be of the trust to hold the IANA trademarks and domain names? Trust should be neutral - key principle. Needs to be responsive and responsible to the three communities in some fashion (will need to be detailed at a later stage). Capable to act like a trademark owner, including quality control, police & enforce trademark rights, but both done with not a too strong touch. Needs to have experience in holding trademarks, but also issues as they relate to the Internet. Needs to have necessary funding to carry out these responsibilities: requires access to personnel with experience and outside trademark counsel. * What need to be requirements specifically in relation to separation: Need to have clear guidelines in relation to licensing, procedure in place for the trust to comply with orders from operational communities in case of separation and required transfer of licenses, including enforcement procedure. This could be operationalised through contract and bylaw requirements as well as trust document itself. See also Sidley comments in relation to trust document requirements. * Question 2: Does the DT consider this one of the principles or requirements for the names community (exercise control/oversight over the mark(s))? Should not be the priority or one of the main elements. Main focus should be that trademark is used by the authorised communities in a manner that has been intended. Consider asking ICANN what kind of quality control has been excercised over the years? Quality control needs to be fit for purpose - needs to meet minimum requirements (legal requirements). * Question 3: Yes, all three communities should be included in a solution, just as the ICG proposal has developed. There are some areas of different understandings: for example, the names community considers PTI the IFO, whereas the numbers community considers ICANN the IFO. * What is meant by neutral? Action item: inquire with ICANN about whether they have liscensed the trademarks, and if so, under what provisions. Action item: Greg to share document that details the different trademark registrations Timeline?: ASAP. Goal is to have interrum report by 19 Nov. Then full report (final draft) 2 weeks after that for following CWG meeting of 3 Dec. * Question 4: What information remains to be provided to the Design Team? _ask ICANN did they trademark _confirm list of three domain names _any other legal advice from Sidley? * Question 5: What does the DT propose to be the defining qualities of a neutral/independent trust that will serve in this role? _may want advice from Trust Lawyers _may want to consider how time efficient to set up new entity * Question 6: Does the Design Team confirm that IFO operational control (and transfer) of domain names is one of the principles/requirements for the names community? _question is about whether the DT agrees with the operational control of the <http://iana.org/> iana.org domain name remains with the IFO _Need to go back to proposal and confirm what it says * Question 7: Can the Design Team specify the elements that would define a neutral/independent trust? _flesh out between now and next call _clarify what neutral / independent means AOB: Next call: Action Item: Send Doodle for 2 additional calls between Mon, Tues for next two weeks Meeting adjourned.

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #70 -- 4 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 5, 2015

Nov. 5, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 70 on 4 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/JJ1YAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: send letter to Chartering Organizations to confirm intended role for CWG in implementation and rationale. "This is our intention.... if not objection, CWG will proceed..." Action: send letter to Akram, Trang, and team to formalize the CWG role in implementation Action: devise early communication of this process for confirmation of CCWG dependencies. Notes Opening Remarks * Meeting scheduled for every two weeks to ensure it is calendarized - if not necessary, it will be cancelled * Review starting time of this specific meeting, noting limited attendance for this meeting (could be attendance/travel for the IETF and IGF meetings) Implementation * Implementation team at ICANN is headed by Akram Atallah and Trang Nguyen * CWG Charter is silent on implementation, but it would be logical for the CWG to stay in place to ensure that questions can be answered throughout implementation. Action: send letter to Chartering Organizations to confirm intended role for CWG in implementation and rationale. "This is our intention.... if not objection, CWG will proceed..." Action: send letter to Akram, Trang, and team to formalize the CWG role in implementation * DT-O is serving as a facilitator for the FY17 Budget process to ensure that CWG recommendations are taken into account in the assumptions related to transition. * DT-IPR just launched on Tuesday. Staff circulated a chronology of CWG position and development which the DT can use to launch its work. * SLEs implementation work is ongoing. Implementation team will provide an update on CWG calls moving forward. ICANN has looked at some of the data and prepared for release, including a formal request to NTIA (required per the Contract). CCWG & ICG * CWG should write to Chartering Orgs to confirm that CCWG has met requirements. This would aid the COs for approval process. The steps would be as follows: * As part of the CCWG public comment, the CWG will indicate whether or not requirements are met. * After the public comment, the CWG writes to the Chartering Orgs to confirm that requirements have been met * Then, need for the Chartering Orgs to confirm in their motions on CCWG proposal Action: devise early communication of this process for confirmation of CCWG dependencies. Bylaws * Work is ongoing to draft the CWG Bylaws. These were expected this week, but have not yet been delivered. * Suggested process: CWG reviews draft, confirms them, submits to ICANN for implementation and copies the CCWG. Subject to no objection from CCWG chairs, the implementation can proceed. AOB * Upcoming meeting schedule to be revised and sent to CWG. * Consider adding the integration of separation issue as an item for next CWG call. Closing Remarks Thank you

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 4 November
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 4 November 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/rJU0Aw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action item: Staff will come back with more detailed description of base scenarios and share it with DT-O list prior to 18 November * Action item: DT-O Call to be scheduled for 18 November (staff to circulate doodle poll to find suitable time for that date) Notes * Budget implications as a result of the eventual implementation of the CWG-Stewardship recommendations came up during the FY17 budget discussions in Dublin * Not for DT-O to decide when implementation will occur, but natural for DT-O to serve in co-ordinating / facilitating role to contribute to the budget process as needed. Any such contribution will be provided to CWG-Stewardship for sign-off. * See slide presentation provided by Xavier to DT-O mailing list. * Two timeline processes which are independent but move in parallel. * How to reflect potential proposals in draft budget by approx. mid January. What assumptions should be defined. * Role of DT-O to assist CWG-Stewardship in clarifying assumptions to aid the development of the draft budget by 15 January. * Not necessary for CWG-Stewardship to develop anything further at this stage beyond what they have provided, but DT-O/CWG-Stewardship can ensure that assumptions are in line and do not conflict with the CWG-Stewardship proposal. * No need to be granular - keep things simple. Possible approach outlined on slide 4 of the presentation. Open questions, requiring assumptions: When can implementation start, how long will implementation take. Expected that an assessment will be made by mid-January in relation to these questions. Potentially some of the implementation work could start prior to FY17, even if the actual transition wouldn't take place until 1 October. Until NTIA approves the transition, it will be difficult to commence any of the implementation work. * Note, this is an FY17 approach (FY17 runs from 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2017). Is this minimal option with regards to PTI separation implementation intended as a temporary or a longer term solution? Separation could potentially be done in a phased manner. Response: CWG-Stewardship does not seem to address a specific level of separation, so why make it more complex than needed and stick with current arrangements? Is easiest and less costly. Staff has not seen any conflict with this approach and the CWG-Stewardship proposal, but if so, the CWG-Stewardship should point this out. * PTI budget should be cleary differentiated, even if it is with shared expenses. Scenario 2 should be presented in more detail to the CWG-Stewardship. * Within ICANN budget a specific PTI budget would be provided, with a level of detail that could be designed in co-operation with the community. Level of detail is not conditioned by the level of separation. By 5 March, in the document that will be submitted for public comment, it would have somewhere in the document the assumptions lay-out for how and how much of the PTI is implemented by when in FY17 or prior to and with what impact financially, with project information. * Intention is to present to CWG-Stewardship assumptions before holiday season to determine support for these assumptions. Would need to be provided at the latest by mid-January to feed into the budget process. Reality is that by mid-January not all details will be known so it does not make sense to try to detail everything and go to granular. However, agreement on high level principles will be helpful to the staff working on the budget. * Base and alternative scenario would be presented, with ability to develop further scenarios if needed. * Would it be possible to have by 17 November to have a more detailed description of items 2 and 3 on slide 4? DT-O could then meet on 18 to review / finalise and submit to CWG-Stewardship for review during their meeting on 19 November, if there is a meeting. Staff is able to provide next level of detail in relation to budget aspect and assumptions. Needs to be a base understanding of what is the current level of operational separation. * Work on SLEs wll be factored in. It will be considered implementation cost and would be part of the implementation initiative. Next steps: * Action item: Staff will come back with more detailed description of base scenarios and share it with DT-O list prior to 18 November * Action item: DT-O Call to be scheduled for 18 November (staff to circulate doodle poll to find suitable time for that date)

1 0

Call for volunteers - IPR issue
by Lise Fuhr Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

All, We now need to get to work on dealing with the IANA IPR. As you know, there are various reference documents as follows: 1. ICG Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-propo sal-EN.pdf 2. The recent draft specification from the numbers community <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004441.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004441.html 3. The framework from the protocols community <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004449.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004449.html 4. The ICANN Board Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en 5. The CWG Statement on the IPR issue <https://community.icann.org/x/LohYAw> https://community.icann.org/x/LohYAw It seems to the CWG Stewardship chairs that we need a group with relevant expertise to look into and propose the principles and requirements for a post-transition home for the IANA IPR. Relevant expertise may include; trademark law and practice, trust law and practice and detailed understanding of background to the formation, development and management of the IETF Trust. Given that the other operational communities are ahead of us on this and very interested to communicate and collaborate as necessary, there is some urgency to this work. Ideally a draft should be ready for the meeting on 5th November. Accordingly, please could we hear from interested participants with relevant expertise as soon as possible. Please express your interest on list. Thank you, Lise & Jonathan CWG Co-Chairs

11 11

Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 4, 2015

Nov. 4, 2015

Original link:https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship -discussions Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-di scussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition is now a step closer The ICG and CCWG-Accountability met in Dublin during ICANN54 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> to continue work on their proposals in wake of the feedback received during the two public comment periods that ended in September. The ICG was successful in completing its Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal and is now awaiting the finalization of the CCWG-Accountability¹s Work Stream 1 Recommendations. When CCWG-Accountability finalizes its Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the CWG-Stewardship confirms that the recommendations meet its requirements, the ICGcan consider its proposal complete and begin the process of submitting it to the NTIA. Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal Taking into account an analysis of the public comments <https://www.dropbox.com/s/j07zo4malyc2sx6/Public%20Comment%20Summary%20-%20 23Oct15-f2f%20edits-clean.docx?dl=0> received during the public comment period <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> that ended on 8 September 2015, and after a number of working sessions <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule-table?combine=ICG> duringICANN54 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) has announced <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg -on-enhancing-icann-accountability/> that it has finalized its proposal <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf> . However, before the ICG sends the proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ) via the ICANN Board, it will first confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) that its accountability requirements have been met by Work Stream 1 recommendations currently being finalized by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ).TheICG has decided to keep its mailing lists active until 30 September 2016 to enable the community to continue to contact them, if needed. It is also seeking feedback from the threeIANA operational communities (names, numbers and protocol parameters) to see if they would like ICG to play a role during the implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition. The ICGwill not hold any more face-to-face meetings and will only hold conference calls on an as-needed basis. There are still some implementation details to be finalized for the transition, including the issue of the IANA trademark and intellectual property rights (IPR). The CWG-Stewardship will work with the two other operational communities to find a solution to the IPR issue that meets the needs of all three communities. CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations Following the 12 September end of the public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> for the 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> , the CCWG-Accountability held a face-to-face meeting <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> , 25-26 September, in Los Angeles, and a number of working sessions <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56134263> in Dublin during ICANN54. As a result of its work to incorporate the feedback from the community, including feedback from the ICANN Board, the CCWG-Accountability made a number of adjustments and refinements to its draft recommendations. As a result of the adjustments, the CCWG-Accountability has decided to send the revised recommendations for a third public comment period. The third comment period will have a two-stage approach so the community can begin reviewing the materials as soon as possible. This is to enable the report on Work Stream 1 recommendations to be finalized and sent to the ICANN Board by mid January 2016, ensuring there are minimal effects on the timeline of the IANA Stewardship Transition. Key dates 15 Nov 2015 A high-level overview of Work Stream 1 Recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal to be: 1. Released for a 35-day public comment period 2. Sent to the CCWG-Accountability¹s Chartering Organizations for their feedback 30 Nov 2015 Full third draft report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations released for 20 days of consultation Early Jan 2016 Amended report submitted to Chartering Organizations Mid Jan 2016 Potential face-to-face meeting for Chartering Organizations, if needed, to decide whether to support the report Mid Jan 2016 CCWG-Accountability to submit final report to the ICANN Board, enabling theICG to also submit its final report For more information on the amendments that the CCWG-Accountability decided to pursue in Dublin, see the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs' Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/Cross%20Community%20Working%20Group%20on%20 Enhancing%20ICANN%20Accountability%20ICANN54%20co-Chairs'%20Statement> . IANA Stewardship Transition in the news 27 Oct 2015Governments v. ICANN: The Last Battle Before the IANA Transition <http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-b efore-the-iana-transition/> , Council on Foreign Relations [EN] 23 Oct 2015ICANN and IANA: Making the right not a rash decision <https://www.aei.org/publication/icann-and-iana-making-the-right-not-a-rash- decision/> , American Enterprise Institute [EN] 13 Oct 2015Perché 40 mila ore di lavoro non sono bastate a trovare un accordo sul futuro di Internet senza la guida USA <http://www.chefuturo.it/2015/10/accordo-futuro-internet-usa/> , CheFuturo! [IT] 29 Sep 2015IANA-Aufgabe durch USA weiter unter Zeitdruck: Auf Messers Schneide <http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IANA-Aufgabe-durch-USA-weiter-unter-Zeitd ruck-Auf-Messers-Schneide-2832298.html> , Heise [DE] You can play a role in IANA¹s future Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANNaccountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org> . Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 2 November 2015

7 9