March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 31 March
by Brenda Brewer March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting 31 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893669 Notes Notes DT M - 31/3 Brief overview of current escalation procedures for IANA (specifically relating to naming): * Escalation process is available to anyone that has issues to raise, not only direct customers * Requestor submits email to dedicated address ( <mailto:escalation@iana.org> escalation(a)iana.org) This email goes to the IANA customer service and open a ticket. Email is acknowledged within 1 business days and a response is provided in within 2 business days by IANA specialist. * If issue is not resolved, issue is escalated by the IANA specialist to next level which is the function liaison (for example, for numbers it would be Naella, for names it is Kim Davies). * If issue is not resolved, issue is escalated to IANA's programs manager, currently Elise Gerich * If issue is not resolved, it is escalated to CEO/ President * If issue is not resolved, the requestor can go the ombudsman and initiate a process (information is also available on the IANA web-site) * Phone interaction is possible as part of the process. Note, very few escalations have come through the system to date. Note, some requestors may skip steps and directly approach one of the people in the chain or go directly to the ombudsman. Question: what resolution can the ombudsman bring to the process? Ombudman would likely play a mediating role. (note, no known IANA cases that involve the ombudsman to date) IANA Staff currently documenting issues that are raised informally so that these can be tracked through the escalation mechanism as well. Improvements are being made to the web-site. Information can currently be found under the procedures tab on the IANA web-site ( <http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure> http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure) Is severity assigned to ticket? In addition to the specialist, the manager can see the ticket so if it is significant it will be discussed before a response is sent. Since October, less than 10 complaints, since January only 1 complaints have been received. Those that respond to the complaints are members of the IANA team, who provide 24x7/365 support. Consider using existing escalation process and see how CSC is inserted? If existing escalation process does not resolve the issue it is reported to CSC and ombudsman can become involved. Consider removing Fadi from the escalation path? Step 2 would be ombudsman (optional) and reporting to CSC. Does ombudsman fit more into the problem management part? As incident management is presumably linked to active failure issues. Active failure issues are addressed immediately - is a different process. Next meeting to be scheduled for 15.00 UTC on Thursday 2 April

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 8 | 27 March
by Brenden Kuerbis March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

This is my understanding too. I see from the minutes: Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional > separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA > functions. While the CWG has put external "on ice" for now, I don't think functional separation and legal separation fully capture the possible differences between internal and hybrid model. As I understand it, legal separation would create an IANA affiliate, potentially with ICANN as sole member ("owner"). Proponents of the hybrid model have stated, and others agreed, that one variant of that model could "provide a path" to include the RIRs and IETF if they desired at some future date. In that case, an IANA affiliate could potentially have more than one members ("ownership"). A related point about leadership and management of an IANA affiliate. In any variant, I personally don't think it's prudent to have overlapping individuals between ICANN (or any policy organization) and an IANA affiliate. We don't want to introduce the possibility of conflicting incentives. For many, I think an overall objective is to maintain separation of policy and implementation activities. In sum, I hope CWG is not precluding further exploration of these possible variations in "ownership" and management of an IANA affiliate. Hopefully, independent counsel will be providing us with a range of separation alternatives. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > Seun, > > > > It is my understanding that we have asked Sidley to look both the internal > accountability and the hybrid subsidiary models. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 4:08 PM > *To:* Brenda Brewer > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA > F2F Day 2 Session 8 | 27 March > > > > Hello, > > Briefly reading through this, It seem "internal accountability" is no > longer considered but the "integrated/hybrid" is? (I guess I will have to > go through the transcript for the sessions I missed) In anycase I think it > was the best meeting of the CWG ever. > > Thanks to staff for all the effort and to Brenda/Grace especially for the > remote support. I also like to specially commend the Co-Chairs for the > level of coordination provided through the meeting to ensure focus that > produced great outcome. Kudus to the entire CWG for the level of maturity > exhibited as well.... at the end, whatever solution will come up with will > be attributed to the entire community so it will be win win for us all as I > expect we are all interested in the continued operation of IANA in a manner > that maintains/improve overall stability of the DNS. > > On an unrelated note, my country Nigeria decides on it's next president > tomorrow, do remember us in your prayers as we go through the process. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 27 Mar 2015 16:49, "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 2 > Session 8 Meeting on 27 March are available here: Session 8 > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893304> > > > Action Items > > · *Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles* > > · > *Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. * > * > From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies.* > > > · *Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out* > > · > *Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal * > > · > *Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG* > Notes > > *Question to consider during the break* > > What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for? > > > Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge? > > Comments: > > · > > - > Suggest that external is put to the side for now, and that the integrated/hybrid model be brought forward > - > Look at this from perspective of stability and continuity is important and may lead to hybrid model > - > With hybrid, we are taking the bet on enhancing ICANN's accountability, and if we lose that bet, then it should be lost publically. Contract Co. is > hedging against that bet. > - Registries would like to explore the internal solutions further > - > A proposal that Sidley look into the Hybrid model and Contract Co. model > - > There are a lot of similarities in the internal models -- would like for Sidley to look at those > - > We got input on the Contract Co. model from our Public Comment in December 2014 > - Would *not* communicate that we have eliminated Contract Co. > - > How do we fill in the gaps in the Hybrid model? Perhaps Sidley can assist with that > - Contract Co. may have ideas to contribute to Hybrid > - > Sidley can help us understand how we institutionalize the link with the CCWG-Acct work (Sidley is working with both groups) > - Consider the broader community (the GAC, the WSIS+10 review, etc) > > *Chair's summary: * > > We don't want to pre-empt a decision, but we want a focus > > There are still details to iron out > > Sidley will focus on internal models > > > We are working closely with CCWG-acct and are perhaps even giving them more direction for their work with our focus > > *Action* (Lise): set a deadline for Principles > > *Action* > (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies. > > > *Design Team Status Update* > > · > > · DTA -- prefer before 10 April > > · DTB is in progress (survey ends on 3 April) > > · DTC has a lot of work to do before 10 April > > · DTD is changing its purpose to move the considerations to DTF > > *Action:* Cheryl and Alan to work this out > > · > > · DTE is complete and will be submitted to Red team > > · DTF -- Alan is lead > > · DTL -- waiting on some requested documents > > · DTM may need to revisit considering CCWG output > > · DTN will take guidance and registries document for as input > > · DTO -- needs a lead > > · Red Team will be staff led > > Thank you DTs for all the good work > > *Timeline* > > Compiled by Berry Cobb > > Main changes: > > · > > - Public Comment is shifted back to 20 April > - > High intensity to prepare for public comment is moved to 13-14 April > - Translation is important > - > Public Comment may require special device with specific questions (part of the structured for discussed) > - > Structured PC makes the analysis more accurate and easier to do. > - > Risk factor of community concensus remains -- members must do their best to communicate back with their groups consistently so that there are no surprises > > *Action* > (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal > > *Action* > (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG > > *Key Dates* > > · 10 April – deadline for DTs to provide content > > · 13-14 Intensive working days – Preparing final proposal > > · 20 Apr (Monday) – Start of Public Comment for 30 days > > · 20 May (Wednesday) – Close of Public Comment > > - - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - - > > · 30 May (Saturday) – High-Intensity weekend > > · 08 Jun (Monday) – Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs > > · 25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Statement from CWG IANA Stewardship Transition meeting in Istanbul
by Lise Fuhr March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

Dear All, Please see the following link for the CWG chairs' statement and summary after the meeting in Istanbul. Thank you for a very good and productive meeting. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-29-en Best regards, Jonathan & Lise

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 8 | 27 March
by Brenda Brewer March 29, 2015

March 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 2 Session 8 Meeting on 27 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893304> Session 8 Action Items * Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles * Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. >From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies. * Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out * Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal * Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG Notes Question to consider during the break What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for? Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge? Comments: * * Suggest that external is put to the side for now, and that the integrated/hybrid model be brought forward * Look at this from perspective of stability and continuity is important and may lead to hybrid model * With hybrid, we are taking the bet on enhancing ICANN's accountability, and if we lose that bet, then it should be lost publically. Contract Co. is hedging against that bet. * Registries would like to explore the internal solutions further * A proposal that Sidley look into the Hybrid model and Contract Co. model * There are a lot of similarities in the internal models -- would like for Sidley to look at those * We got input on the Contract Co. model from our Public Comment in December 2014 * Would not communicate that we have eliminated Contract Co. * How do we fill in the gaps in the Hybrid model? Perhaps Sidley can assist with that * Contract Co. may have ideas to contribute to Hybrid * Sidley can help us understand how we institutionalize the link with the CCWG-Acct work (Sidley is working with both groups) * Consider the broader community (the GAC, the WSIS+10 review, etc) Chair's summary: We don't want to pre-empt a decision, but we want a focus There are still details to iron out Sidley will focus on internal models We are working closely with CCWG-acct and are perhaps even giving them more direction for their work with our focus Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies. Design Team Status Update * * DTA -- prefer before 10 April * DTB is in progress (survey ends on 3 April) * DTC has a lot of work to do before 10 April * DTD is changing its purpose to move the considerations to DTF Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out * * DTE is complete and will be submitted to Red team * DTF -- Alan is lead * DTL -- waiting on some requested documents * DTM may need to revisit considering CCWG output * DTN will take guidance and registries document for as input * DTO -- needs a lead * Red Team will be staff led Thank you DTs for all the good work Timeline Compiled by Berry Cobb Main changes: * * Public Comment is shifted back to 20 April * High intensity to prepare for public comment is moved to 13-14 April * Translation is important * Public Comment may require special device with specific questions (part of the structured for discussed) * Structured PC makes the analysis more accurate and easier to do. * Risk factor of community concensus remains -- members must do their best to communicate back with their groups consistently so that there are no surprises Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG Key Dates * 10 April - deadline for DTs to provide content * 13-14 Intensive working days - Preparing final proposal * 20 Apr (Monday) - Start of Public Comment for 30 days * 20 May (Wednesday) - Close of Public Comment - - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - - * 30 May (Saturday) - High-Intensity weekend * 08 Jun (Monday) - Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs * 25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG

3 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul
by Gomes, Chuck March 28, 2015

March 28, 2015

Here are links to the budget info. Chuck Section III: Relevant Resources * Draft FY16 Operating Plan & Budget [PDF<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy16-18m…>, 26 MB] [DOCX<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy16-doc…>, 2.8 MB] * FY16 Projects by project [PDF<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-portfoli…>, 573 KB] [XLSX<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-portfoli…>, 79 KB] From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 4:31 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul Importance: High Are there any more volunteers for Design Team O on the IANA budget? We need to get going this week. As I suggested in Istanbul, it would be fine to have someone who is interested in this topic but doesn't have much experience with the ICANN budgeting process. All of the volunteers so far have good ICANN budget experience so it will be easy to bring a newby up to speed. My understanding is that the following have volunteered: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * Oliver Crepin-Leblond * Alan Greenberg * Me I would like to request a Doodle Poll for possible meeting times this coming week for DT-O. To get it started, here are the times I am NOT available: * Monday, 30 March: 1400-1500 UTC; 1700-1800 UTC * Tuesday, 31 March: No conflicts yet * Wednesday, 1 April: 1700-2000 UTC * Thursday, 2 April: 1100-1400 UTC; 1600-1700 UTC; 1900-2000 UTC * Friday, 3 April: No conflicts yet. Volunteers - Please review the Draft FY16 Draft Operating Plan and Budget; there are two documents that should be reviewed. There are links to both of them on the public comment page at the Public Comment link at ICANN.org. * You can link to a PDF or Word document of the plan and budget. * You can link to a PDF or Excel document of the budget detail for all of the projects. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:52 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul Dear All, For our conversation on design teams later this afternoon, please find attached the proposed design team post Istanbul status that is complimentary to the overview that included in the slide deck that Grace circulated earlier. Best regards, Marika

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul
by Gomes, Chuck March 28, 2015

March 28, 2015

Are there any more volunteers for Design Team O on the IANA budget? We need to get going this week. As I suggested in Istanbul, it would be fine to have someone who is interested in this topic but doesn't have much experience with the ICANN budgeting process. All of the volunteers so far have good ICANN budget experience so it will be easy to bring a newby up to speed. My understanding is that the following have volunteered: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * Oliver Crepin-Leblond * Alan Greenberg * Me I would like to request a Doodle Poll for possible meeting times this coming week for DT-O. To get it started, here are the times I am NOT available: * Monday, 30 March: 1400-1500 UTC; 1700-1800 UTC * Tuesday, 31 March: No conflicts yet * Wednesday, 1 April: 1700-2000 UTC * Thursday, 2 April: 1100-1400 UTC; 1600-1700 UTC; 1900-2000 UTC * Friday, 3 April: No conflicts yet. Volunteers - Please review the Draft FY16 Draft Operating Plan and Budget; there are two documents that should be reviewed. There are links to both of them on the public comment page at the Public Comment link at ICANN.org. * You can link to a PDF or Word document of the plan and budget. * You can link to a PDF or Excel document of the budget detail for all of the projects. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:52 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul Dear All, For our conversation on design teams later this afternoon, please find attached the proposed design team post Istanbul status that is complimentary to the overview that included in the slide deck that Grace circulated earlier. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 7 | 27 March
by Brenda Brewer March 28, 2015

March 28, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 2 Session 7 Meeting on 27 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893302> Session 7 Notes Overarching concerns that affect all models : * legacy of TLD contracting or not (diversity of community idea) * Continuity of service (staffing) Review & test models (continued) Focus: what are the objectives and constraints? At the point of transition, the functions will be with ICANN and the job of this group and the CCWG-Acct is to ensure that we can be satisfied with that. Eventually, there needs to be possibility for separation if required. We are using the term "stewardship" interchangeably, but the term means different things depending on context (NTIA is steward for DNS) Internal and external models are about how the separation of the names function is managed if needed. A stewardship problem is different than a competency problem At some point, there is a need to discuss MRT and whether that is needed or not (for internal, ICANN may have the structure in place) Comments from Sidley There is a lot of work to be done to understand the models and the 'teeth' that their mechanisms may provide Sidley is well positioned to help carve this out. Could do with 3, but is much harder. Would prefer fewer or a priority. Question to consider during the break What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for? Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge?

3 2

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Public Comment Period Duration
by James Gannon March 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

Forwarded Begin forwarded message: From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Public Comment Period Duration Date: 24 March 2015 18:53:15 GMT+2 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All: I wanted to make sure you were aware that the ICANN public comment periods were changed in January 2015. The minimum public comment period is no longer 21 days with a 21 day reply period. Instead, it is a single (minimum) 40 day comment period. This is apparently a response to certain ATRT2 recommendations. See: https://community.icann.org/display/soaceabout/Announcement+Letter+to+ICANN… There were two community webinars on 22 January announcing "Public Comment Enhancements" (this and the other changes in the above document). See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-16-en. The announcement of the webinar mentions the "suspension" of the reply period and the new 40 day minimum period. Webinar materials (slide deck, transcripts, etc.) are here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418375 Aside from the webinar announcement, I don't believe there was a formal announcement to the community of the change in public comment periods. As a result, there still seems to be some lack of knowledge of this change. I hope this helps. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Proposed DT Status Post Istanbul
by Marika Konings March 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

Dear All, For our conversation on design teams later this afternoon, please find attached the proposed design team post Istanbul status that is complimentary to the overview that included in the slide deck that Grace circulated earlier. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Benefits of Integrated model
by Brenden Kuerbis March 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

We pulled this together, hope this helps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vF657f48o3n-zosS8PNyMAesgol-NdPH2Bg85Wk… A legally distinct IANA affiliate, consisting of ICANN's current IANA department operations, with one or more members including ICANN, the RIRs (their preferred legal entity), and IETF (their preferred legal entity), and governed by a community selected board: - maintains operational security, stability, resiliency of the DNS and other IANA functions; - clearly separates the implementation of the IANA functions from names (ICANN), numbers (RIRs) and protocols (IETF) policy making; - creates IANA operational oversight, with service level agreements continuing or being developed in conjunction with and monitored by a direct customer committee(s) and comparable bodies within the policy organizations; - creates IANA organizational accountability, with its board 1) being directly selected through multistakeholder community selection mechanisms within the policy making organizations, and 2) decisions subject to an independent appeals mechanism; - addresses IANA legal and financial risk, by limiting the scope of IANA’s operations and activities; - addresses geopolitical concerns potentially through the geographic diversity of IANA’s members; - reduces Internet governance and business risk, by maintaining the coherency of the IANA functions while, should it be necessary, allowing for the portability of IETF, RIR, and ICANN registries; - creates consistency between and strengthens the proposed contractual transition approaches of the IETF, RIRs, and ICANN; - adheres to and satisfies the NTIA’s four principles, and achieves the USG’s stated "intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community". --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Post Doctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org>

1 0