December 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
by Grace Abuhamad March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise

16 31

DT-IPR Draft Document
by Greg Shatan Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

All, In anticipation of our call tomorrow (Tuesday), I attach a draft document from DT-IPR. These should be viewed as proposed or potential principles and requirements for the consideration of the CWG. In particular, there are several items where choices have been laid out for discussion by the CWG, which should lead to making choices on these alternatives. I look forward to our discussion. Greg

2 2

[blog] IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 23, 2015

Dec. 23, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-… IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning: Taking Stock of the Last Two Months and Looking Forward to 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation-…> The last update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation> I provided was just over two months ago as we were heading into ICANN54 in Dublin. Our goal at that time was to receive feedback and better understand the community's need for reporting and oversight of implementation planning for the IANA Stewardship Transition. In looking back at our progress since October, we achieved this and much more. We are now providing monthly status updates on implementation planning efforts to the leadership teams of the CCWG-Accountability, CWG-Stewardship, CRISP Team, IANAPLAN WG, GNSO, ccNSO,IETF, IAB, and RIRs on the Transition Program Facilitation Management calls<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en>. Additionally, we have established a reporting cadence with the CWG-Stewardship by providing more detailed implementation planning status updates on the group's bi-weekly calls. We are also working with all of the operational communities on defining service levels and documenting our relationships with them, as well as on theIANA Intellectual Property Rights. On the CCWG-Accountability side, we look forward to engaging with the group once its Work Stream 1 Recommendations are finalized. Shortly after ICANN54, we launched a dedicated web page<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> to provide the community with updates on implementation planning activities. We have been building out this web page to provide a more seamless browsing experience, including sort and filter capabilities. Be on the look out for more on this in the coming weeks. On the U.S. Government side, we have been engaging with NTIA on our planning efforts. The feedback from NTIA has been very helpful in developing our plans and overall timelines to allow ICANN to plan for implementing as early as possible while respecting the current IANA Functions Contract. In my pre-ICANN54 blog, I wrote that our assessment showed that we would need four months to complete the IANA Stewardship Transition implementation, assuming the proposals are approved. This timetable has not changed. However, we hope that our continued collaboration with the community, engagement with NTIA, and careful project planning will enable us to complete the necessary implementation as efficiently as possible to meet a conclusion in time for a transition in 2016. We will continue to monitor progress, and regularly report back to the community. As we head into 2016, our team looks forward to further collaboration with the community toward a successful and on-time transition. Happy holidays to those celebrating this season and best wishes into the New Year!

1 0

FW: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Forwarding to the full group for information. The comment link is: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n ov15/msg00057.html From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:35 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, 'Patrik Fältström' <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "byron.holland(a)cira.ca" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, "glen.gery(a)icann.org" <glen.gery(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal All, Please note that the document provided is specifically the CWG Stewardship response to the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal and its purpose is to address the detail issues relating to the dependence of the CWG Stewardship on the work of the CCWG Accountability. For completeness, it has also been submitted to the CCWG Public Comment Forum prior to the closing of that forum. Thank-you, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 21 December 2015 18:17 To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>; byron.holland(a)cira.ca; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>; Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>; Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>; glen.gery(a)icann.org; Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Subject: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs and Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship's Chartering Organizations, Please find attached and below the CWG-Stewardship¹s comments on the CCWG-Accountability¹s Third Draft Proposal. These comments have been posted to the Public Comment forum and are being sent to you for information and wider circulation. Thank you, Lise & Jonathan ICANN Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants and co-chairs, We write in response to your group¹s recent publication <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145016/CCWG%20Draft%20Pr oposal_Dec.01.2015.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1449011113000&api=v2> of your third draft proposal (the ³Third Draft Proposal²). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). References below are to the main body of the Third Draft Proposal, unless otherwise indicated. We have also indicated below where we previously raised points in response <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/55.%20%20CWG%20IA NA%20Stewardship%20Comments.pdf?api=v2> to your group¹s publication <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460&preview=/ 53783460/54887691/CCWG-2ndDraft-FINAL-3August.pdf> of its second draft proposal (the ³Second Draft Proposal²). First, we would once again like to confirm the quality of the ongoing coordination and collaboration between the co-chairs of our respective groups since the CCWG-Accountability commenced its work. Each of our groups has been regularly engaged with and updated on the progress made, including the interdependency and interrelation between our work, and this has led to the regular exchange of key correspondence to develop and formalize the linkage. As CWG-Stewardship co-chairs, we have discussed with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs on a regular basis key aspects of the work of both groups. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816&preview=/ 53779816/54003507/FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf> submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Third Draft Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. Therefore, this document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability in determining whether the Third Draft Proposal meets the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. In that regard, we kindly request confirmation that the CWG-Stewardship comments reflected in this document are addressed in the next version or variation of the CCWG-Accountability proposal in order to ensure that this next version or variation of the proposal addresses all of the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. Our comments focus on the specific ICANN accountability requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal: 1. Community Empowerment Mechanism The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the multistakeholder community be empowered with the following rights with respect to the ICANN Board, the exercise of which should be ensured by the creation of a stakeholder community/member group: The ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board and to recall the entire ICANN Board; The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board¹s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (IFR) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget; and The ability to approve amendments to ICANN¹s ³Fundamental Bylaws,² as described below. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates implementing a ³Sole Designator² model, pursuant to which the community would be empowered to act as the Sole Designator to: (a) exercise the community powers described in the Third Draft Proposal, including the power to: (i) remove (in addition to appoint) individual ICANN Directors, and (ii) recall the entire ICANN Board, and (b) enforce decisions and powers of the Community Mechanism as the Sole Designator (i.e., the Empowered Community) through initiating a binding Independent Review Panel process, where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results. In addition, the Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the community would be required to follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers. Finally, with respect to actions involving individual Directors, the escalation process to remove a Director could only be used once during a Director¹s term if the process reaches the step of holding a community forum or above and then fails to remove the Director. Conclusion We believe that the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the community empowerment mechanism. Although the community powers are in some cases less direct than in the Sole Member model contemplated by the Second Draft Proposal, we believe the CWG-Stewardship requirements can be met through the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal. The CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal requires that the community ³follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers.² This is a reasonable requirement but it creates a dependency on the usability of the engagement and escalation processes. If the community and in particular the SOs and ACs are unable to reasonably meet the requirements of those processes, then the community powers will lose their value. The very specific time requirements for various SO and AC actions in the escalation processes may be impossible or at best very difficult to meet; if more than one SO/AC cannot act within the tight time limits, the process will be halted. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that the escalation processes need to happen in a timely manner but they must also allow sufficient time to accommodate the diverse and complex makeup of SOs and ACs. A key question that should be asked of SOs and ACs is this: what is the minimum time they need to respond to a critical issue that is also very time sensitive? To be more specific, can they respond in 7 days without compromising their bottom-up, multistakeholder model? If they cannot, then the CCWG-Accountability recommended empowerment mechanisms do not meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements. This should not be a hard problem to solve. Time restrictions that are deemed to be too short could be lengthened a little and/or the restrictions could be defined in a more flexible manner to allow for brief extensions when reasonably required. 2. ICANN Budget and IANA Functions Budget The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the community have the ability to approve or veto the ICANN Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN¹s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. In the final transition proposal, the CWG-Stewardship also recommends that the IANA Functions Operator¹s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN¹s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. Under the final transition proposal, an itemization of IANA costs would include: direct costs for the operation of the IANA Functions, direct costs for shared resources and support functions allocation. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA Functions Budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN Budget. The CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for an IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. It is anticipated that the IANA Functions Operations Budget review will include a consultation process with relevant and potentially impacted IANA customers. Comment The Third Draft Proposal clarifies that the community would have new powers to reject: (a) ICANN¹s Annual Operating Plan and Budget, (b) the IANA Functions Operations Budget, (c) ICANN¹s Five-Year Strategic Plan and (d) ICANN¹s Five-Year Operating Plan, in each case after approval by the ICANN Board but before they take effect. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that these powers can only be exercised after extensive community discussions and through mandatory escalation processes. The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that prior to the ICANN Board approving a budget or strategic/operating plan, the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board consults with the community. The Third Draft Proposal further specifies that the community could only challenge a budget or strategic/operating plan if there are significant issues brought up in the engagement phase that were not addressed prior to approval. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets would be considered separately by the community so that a rejection of the ICANN Budget would not automatically result in a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget, and a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget would not serve as a rejection of the ICANN Budget. It also proposes that if the community power is exercised to reject the ICANN Budget or the IANA Functions Operations Budget, a caretaker budget would be enacted. The Third Draft Proposal notes that details regarding the caretaker budget are currently under development. As we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not provide for ³approval² by the community of the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget, but rather provides for negative authority in the form of a decision by the community to reject the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget. As we also noted in that comment letter, the CWG-Stewardship acknowledges that the community¹s ability to reject the ICANN Budget and/or the IANA Functions Operations Budget will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements and that community approval is not required. We note that unlike the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address: (i) the CWG-Stewardship¹s requirement that the budget be transparent with respect to the IANA Functions¹ operating costs or (ii) the specific grounds upon which the community could reject a budget or plan. In addition, as we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address the timeframe for when budgets should be submitted. Conclusion Similar to our conclusion in our response on the Second Draft Proposal, overall we believe that the Third Draft Proposal¹s specifications with respect to the community power to reject budgets is both necessary and consistent with the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal; however, we require that the CCWG-Accountability proposal or the implementation process address the matters that are not sufficiently specified in the Third Draft Proposal (i.e., those relating to budget transparency, grounds for rejection of a budget/plan, timing of budget preparation and development of the caretaker budget, each of which were described in the Second Draft Proposal). In addition, we note, that the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process for the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review. We require that the proposal specifically acknowledge this. 3. IFR The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of an IFR which is empowered to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA names function. The CWG-Stewardship proposal contemplates the ability of the community to exercise oversight with respect to ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR by reviewing and approving those ICANN Board decisions. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates incorporating the review system defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN¹s Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the IFR and Special IFR would be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws based on the requirements detailed by the CWG-Stewardship, and notes that it is anticipated that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process would include the CWG-Stewardship. The Third Draft Proposal also provides that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function. Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must have consulted with the community. Conclusion We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the IFR. The community¹s ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times. 4. Customer Standing Committee (CSC) The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of a CSC that is empowered to monitor the performance of the IANA names function and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO. The ccNSO and GNSO should be empowered to address matters escalated by the CSC. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the CSC will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws. We expect that provisions incorporating the CSC into the Bylaws would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). Conclusion We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the CSC, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 5. Post-Transition IANA (PTI) The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates the formation of a PTI as a new legal entity. PTI will have ICANN as its sole member and PTI will therefore be a controlled affiliate of ICANN. As a result, the ICANN Bylaws will need to include governance provisions related to PTI, in particular as it relates to ICANN¹s role as the sole member of PTI. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that governance provisions related to PTI will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws as Fundamental Bylaws. We note that the Second Draft Proposal contemplated that specifications with respect to PTI governance provisions would be based on requirements to be detailed by the CWG-Stewardship. While this language was not included in the Third Draft Proposal, we continue to expect that PTI governance provisions would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). Conclusion We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to PTI, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related PTI governance documents will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 6. Separation Process The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that a Special IFR will be empowered to determine that a separation process between ICANN and PTI is necessary and, if so, to recommend that a Separation Cross-Community Working Group (SCWG) be established to review the identified issues and make recommendations. Annex L of the CWG-Stewardship final proposal sets forth more detailed information as to approval requirements with respect to the formation of an SCWG and approval of SCWG recommendations, including any selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process, in each case these actions require approval by a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the separation process required by the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal describes the CWG-Stewardship requirement of a procedure to implement a separation process should it arise from a Special IFR, including provisions for the creation of an SCWG, its functions and voting thresholds for approving the end-result of the SCWG process. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function; including the triggering of PTI separation. Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, including the triggering of PTI separation, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community. Conclusion We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the separation process. The community¹s ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on Special IFR/SCWG recommendations, which would include the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that (i) the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times, and (ii) the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related the Separation Process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 7. Appeals Mechanism The CWG-Stewardship final proposal contemplates an appeals mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel (IRP), for issues relating to the IANA names function. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an IRP. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition through the appropriate processes. Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates significant enhancements of ICANN¹s existing appeals mechanisms, including the IRP. It is proposed that the IRP will be available to TLD managers to challenge ICANN decisions including with respect to issues relating to the IANA names function (with the exception of ccTLD delegations and redelegations, which appeals mechanisms are to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition, in coordination with other parties), and that the Empowered Community can use the IRP to challenge an ICANN Board decision if it believes that the ICANN Board is in breach of its Articles or Bylaws (for example, if the ICANN Board determines not to accept the decision of the Empowered Community to use one of its community powers or if the ICANN Board determines not to implement a recommendation of the IFR team). The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI. Conclusion As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed. 8. Fundamental Bylaws The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that all the foregoing mechanisms will be provided for in the ICANN Bylaws as ³Fundamental Bylaws.² A ³Fundamental Bylaw² may only be amended with the prior approval of the Empowered Community and may require a higher approval threshold than typical Bylaw amendments (for example, a supermajority vote). Comment The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the following, among others, would be made Fundamental Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1: Each of the community powers (including in relation to ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets, ICANN Director removal/Board recall, and amendments to Fundamental Bylaws); The Empowered Community and the rules by which it is governed; The framework for the IRP; The IFR, Special IFR and the separation process; The CSC; and PTI governance. Prior to approving any Bylaw amendment, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that establishing new Fundamental Bylaws or amending or removing Fundamental Bylaws will require: (i) approval by the ICANN Board (with a three-quarters vote of all standing Directors) and (ii) a decision by the Empowered Community to exercise the Community Power to approve changes to fundamental Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal also specifies the threshold for the exercise of the Community Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws. Conclusion We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to Fundamental Bylaws. Looking forward, we continue to be committed to retaining the link between the work of the two groups. Thank you for taking the lead in responding to the CWG-Stewardship requirements in the Third Draft Proposal and indeed for all related work. As we have communicated with your group on several occasions, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. We look forward to your confirmation that the issues raised above will be resolved in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Blog: IANA Stewardship Transition & Year End
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end IANA Stewardship Transition & Year End <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-year-end#> This past year has been busy for the community on all the transition related work. It has been filled with many ups and downs, good moments and challenging ones, and a year of incredible work, compromise, negotiation and collaboration among all stakeholders. With the end of the year only days away, it's a good opportunity to reflect on all that has been accomplished and consider what's in store for the year ahead. In March 2014, we began the work of facilitating the IANA Stewardship transition process, working with the community to ensure it had what it needed to conduct its work. Earlier this year, in May 2015, NTIAreached out to the communities working on the transition proposal to ask how much time they thought they would need to finalize and implement their proposals. Based on the community's feedback, NTIAannounced the contract extension <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> in August from 30 September 2015 to 30 September 2016, a period of time that includes the NTIA review and approval process and the implementation forecasts submitted by the community. Secretary Strickling has emphasized <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-transition-facilitat ion-09oct15-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB] the timing by which NTIA must receive the final proposals to allow sufficient time on their part. Working backwards from September 2016, and taking into consideration the NTIA review and the implementation time, the community has been working tirelessly to finalize their proposals in January. Also over the past few months, our implementation team, led by Akram Atallah, President, Global Domains Division, began administrative preparation for the necessary implementation actions, including identifying projects based on the current proposals, creating high-level timelines and engaging with the community to better understand their reporting and oversight needs. As communicated to the community, we estimate implementation to take a minimum of four months. In collaboration with the community we hold monthly calls <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en > regarding any expected changes to the community timelines. This provides a useful opportunity for the community working together to keep each other appraised of how any of their work may impact the community-established timeline. After all the progress at ICANN54, both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability have noted their expected time frames. The ICG finalized its work at ICANN54 in Dublin, and provided a status update and proposal document shortly after the meeting concluded. The group awaits confirmation from CWG-Stewardship that its requirements have been met by the CCWG-Accountability, who laid out <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing- icann-accountability-icann54-co-chairs-statement> a rigorous timeline to submit its Work Stream 1 Recommendations at the end of January 2016, which included development of a new Third Draft Proposal, public comment period and Chartering Organization approval. The Board submitted initial thinking based on the summary report <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/ 008390.html> , and have already submitted their full public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30 nov15/msg00011.html> to help meet the timeline, and the Chartering Organizations and many members of the community have been working diligently to get feedback in as soon as reasonably possible. While keeping the CCWG-Accountability busy through January, the goals set out by the CCWG-Accountability balance the various timeline constraints, both inside and outside of the community. However, while timeline concerns should continue to be addressed within the CCWG-Accountability, we cannot risk the ability of ICANN to effectively do its job on Internet identifiers for the sake of meeting that timeline. Staff will continue to do everything we can to help the CCWG-Accountability complete its work in time for NTIA to make a decision this year. What will the next year bring? The community's work reaching the next stages will be underway, and we look forward to supporting the community and its work. We want to be clear that as the CCWG-Accountability weighs the input from this public comment period, we are supportive of the timeline the community lays out both from a staffing and a resource perspective. As many, including Steve and Fadi have said before <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/thoughts-heading-into-los-angeles> , it is more important to get this done right than to get it done quickly, while considering all the interdependencies including the U.S. and NTIA context. For example, the U.S. Congress just passed a 2,009-page Omnibus spending bill that limits NTIA's ability to use funds to relinquish the IANA functions contract before 30 September 2016 (the final day of the current contract term), and we need to remain aware of this, but not let it derail or drive our process. We thank the CCWG-Accountability for their tremendous effort to meet this conclusion in time for a transition in 2016. I look forward to collaborating constructively with the community in whatever they need, and remain confident we will reach conclusion on the transition and achieve this historical endeavor together.

1 0

FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

All, I intend to give this one final proof reading before communicating to the CCWG Chairs on behalf of Lise, myself and the CWG as a whole. It will also be communicated to the chartering organisation chairs as well as submitted via the CCWG public comment forum. Thank you all for you attention to this important component of our work. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 20 December 2015 17:27 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter Dear Client Committee, Attached is a proposed final version of the CWG comment letter - clean and marked to show our incremental changes from the draft circulated to us on December 18. Best regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com <http://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. **************************************************************************** ************************

1 0

CWG letter to CCWG
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Dear Sidley, The CWG Stewardship has reviewed the draft letter and undertaken a series of edits to address various points. We believe that the current draft, attached in both redline & clean format, deals with all of the issues raised prior to, during and after our discussion with you at the most recent CWG meeting. Accordingly, please can you review the attached draft and prepare a final version, which may or may not include any further recommended changes from you, by 16h00 UTC Monday 21 December 2015. We will then transmit that final version to the CCWG Co-Chairs, to the CCWG Chartering Organizations and into the CCWG Public Comment before the 23h59 deadline on Monday 21 December. If you need additional time to prepare the final version (e.g. 18h00 UTC Monday), please let us know as soon as possible. Thank-you, Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship

3 2

FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 18, 2015

Dec. 18, 2015

All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG’s 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here <https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw> ), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I’ve copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I’m sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on…> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

7 22

Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015
by Lise Fuhr Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise

1 0

Proposed language to deal with very tight time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

In response to Jonathan's request of me to draft some possible language to add to the CWG Comment Letter regarding the CCWG Accountability third draft proposal, here is propose as an addition to the Conclusion for Requirement 1 (Community Empowerment Mechanism) in the CWG Comment Letter: "The CCWG third draft proposal requires that the community "follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers." This is a reasonable requirement but it creates a dependency on the usability of the engagement and escalation processes. If the community and in particular the SOs and ACs are unable to reasonably meet the requirements of those processes, then the community powers will lose their value. The very specific time requirements for various SO and AC actions in the escalation processes may be impossible or at best very difficult to meet; if more than one SO/AC cannot act within the tight time limits, the process will be halted. "The CWG recognizes that the escalation processes need to happen in a very timely manner but they must also allow sufficient time to accommodate the diverse and complex makeup of SOs and ACs. A key question that should be asked of SOs and ACs is this: what is the minimum time they need to respond to a critical issue that is also very time sensitive? To be more specific, can they respond in 7 days without compromising their bottom-up, multistakeholder model? If they cannot, then the CCWG recommended empowerment mechanisms do not meet the CWG requirements. This should not be a hard problem to solve. Time restrictions that are deemed to be too short could be lengthened a little and/or the restrictions could be defined in a more flexible manner to allow for brief extensions when needed." Comments, criticism and edits are very welcome. Chuck

9 10