March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Agenda for CWG Meeting #27 (10 March at 17:00 UTC)
by Grace Abuhamad March 9, 2015

March 9, 2015

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for the CWG Meeting #27 (10 March at 17:00 UTC): Proposed Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks & Review of Outstanding Actions 2. Legal Advice a. Update from Client Committee b. Introduction to Sidley Austin 3. Design Teams a. Overview of the DT list b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) 4. AOB 5. Closing Remarks Outstanding Actions: 3Mar Action (Chairs): Present the CWG with DT list and priorities 5Mar Action (Paul): Review DT template to ensure that DT-A scope is aligned. 5Mar Action (Martin): Modify Principles as discussed on 5 March call and recirculate draft for CWG review. Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
by John Poole March 9, 2015

March 9, 2015

Jonathan and Lise: You asked: "what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?" My suggestion: Prompt, transparent reporting to CWG, via the mailing list, of the substance of all meetings, conferences, and other communications (letters, phone calls, etc.), between the Client Committee (or any of its members) and Counsel Sidley Austin. For example, emails to and from the Client Committee members and Counsel Sidley Austin should always carry a "cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" in order to keep everyone up-to-speed and informed as the CWG work progresses. Best regards, John Poole On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > All, > > > > We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has > successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley > Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the > extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects > of its work. > > > > Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of > the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the > functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the > two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten > Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified > members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between > the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the > relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the > Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that > job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input > on the working of the Client Committee. > > > > The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent > interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not > practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously > interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the > CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the > work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client > Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues > and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be > opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order > to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the > announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will > be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. > > > > Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client > Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in > the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of > the CWG’s work commences in earnest? > > > > Thank-you, > > > > > > > > Jonathan & Lise > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

2 1

FW: GNSO Statement on the IANA transition
by Jonathan Robinson March 9, 2015

March 9, 2015

All, Please see attached for a recent statement from the GNSO Council related to the work of the CWG. Jonathan From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 02 March 2015 09:38 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: GNSO Statement on the IANA transition Dear Lisa and Jonathan, On behalf of the GNSO Council, attached please find the GNSO Councils Statement on the IANA Transition for communication to the Cross Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Client Committee Update: Finalists
by Greg Shatan March 8, 2015

March 8, 2015

All, As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms: - Gibson Dunn - Latham & Watkins - Sidley Austin Best regards, Greg Shatan

5 7

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update: Finalists
by John Poole March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Greg, Thanks for sharing. You and the rest of the Client Committee have obviously done an excellent job interviewing and selecting such a fine group of "finalist" law firms, all of whom are eminently well-qualified. Best regards, John Poole On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the > Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms: > > > - Gibson Dunn > - Latham & Watkins > - Sidley Austin > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

1 0

Service Level Expectations Design Team Template
by Marika Konings March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team. Best regards, Marika

11 17

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

This worries me. How do we define "needs"? It sounds perilously close to that community holding the transition hostage for something that they want. Alan At 01/03/2015 02:17 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >I've thought of a b/c mid point complication: > >It is: whether anything needs to be added to currently documented >SLA standards to allow the transition to be acceptable to any key >customer community. > >That's not a wholesale review but it's a little more than b), while >respecting the need for conservatism and efficiency.... > >Jordan > >On Sunday, 1 March 2015, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >+1 to Jordan's specific suggestion as well; considering that >everything works just fine right now is an indication that repeating >the current SLA would at least maintain status quo. > >Will be good if that methodology is applied to other design teams as >much as possible. >The goal is to build a stronger ICANN and so long as we have >a multistakeholder means/process to do that, then our job is done. > >Cheers! > >sent from Google nexus 4 >kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 1 Mar 2015 01:46, "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >You read me right, man ;-) > > > >Cheers, > > >Chris > >On 1 Mar 2015, at 11:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>I think Chris's proposal makes sense too in logically separating: >> >>a) porting across existing service level obligations to the >>post-transition environment; >>b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future; and >>c) reviewing and updating the substantive content >> >>If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not. >> >>That might trim the work this design team needs to do and make >>finalising the names community proposal easier... >> >>cheers >>Jordan >> >> >>On 1 March 2015 at 08:56, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >>Hi, >> >>Makes sense to me. >> >>avri >> >>On 28-Feb-15 18:43, Chris Disspain wrote: >>>On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by >>>accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for >>>review and negotiated changes to those service levels that could >>>be employed immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis. >>> >>>Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Jordan Carter >> >>Chief Executive >>InternetNZ >> >>04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob) >>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>Skype: jordancarter >> >>A better world through a better Internet >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

3 2

Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
by Martin Boyle March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Hi all, And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii). The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening! I propose that we look to: * Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9. * See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable. * See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable. * In the light of Maarten's comment on 5.vi, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable. * See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets. * See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable. * See if Stephanie's proposal for 10 is acceptable. If we have time I'd like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii. However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow's call. Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow. Martin

6 19

CWG Design Teams - Status overview 5 March
by Marika Konings March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached the updated CWG Design Team Status overview that now includes the information relating to the CSC DT as circulated by Donna yesterday. This information has also been uploaded to the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/x/qgwnAw) Best regards, Marika

2 3

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #26 5 March
by Brenda Brewer March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #26 - 05 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890437 Action Items: Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin Action (Paul): Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review. Notes: Roll call (will be taken from Adobe Connect) Not on Adobe Connect: Steve Crocker, Theresa Swinehart 1. Opening Remarks Critical point - have started working with the new approach using design teams. Everyone encouraged to review materials that are shared and provide constructive feedback. Results of the design team will be shared with the full CWG for review and approval - keeping in mind that this will needs to be inserted into the draft transition proposal. Review of outstanding action items: Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Donna): CSC Scope document produced before next meeting (COMPLETED) - to be discussed during today's meeting Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin - to be discussed during today's meeting 2. Update from DT-A (Paul Kane) No substantial updates compared to Tuesday's meeting. Baseline of work was presented during Tuesday's meeting and DT will work from there. DT hopes to share process flow charts early next week. Communications will occur on the publicly archived mailing list. Request to clarify that the DT's scope is to a) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment; b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future but not c) reviewing and updating the substantive content. Intent is to use real world statics as the baseline for SLEs. Item b) is currently not on the list, but is something that has been raised before. DT will first develop process flow and real-world performance (target date - early next week), followed by proposed escalation path in relation to SLE (which is different from periodic review which may be handled by CSC). Item b) could follow after these items have been dealt with. No response to c) yet, in principle not on the agenda, but it could arise. Jay Daly and Jeff Eckhaus are working on the process flow, while Paul is focused on the statistical analysis for now. Question: Is the escalation path uniform irrespective of the sensitivity and exigency of the Registry's problem ? consider an extreme situation that takes a Registry offline. Is there a hotline path? Answer: Yes, this already exists and is likely to continue. Action: Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. 3. Update from DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) Revised template circulated to address comments received - title reflects the intent of the DT. Objective is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the ccTLD community for a possible appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations. What is the expected deliverable? Team still needs to get together to discuss. The DT expects to take a survey of the ccTLD community. Timing will depend on how quickly the survey can be put together while also allowing sufficient time for responses. Should there be support for a limited appeals mechanism, the DT could then consider what the next steps should be. Very narrow focus objective - no link with FOI. Would bringing forward a number of appeal mechanism designs for feedback produce more results? This is to be further discussed by the DT, but Allan would be supportive of that approach. 4. Review of Scope Document DT-C (Donna Austin) See document shared on the mailing list. Structured with previous discussions on CSC in mind, knowing that certain elements such as MRT, internal/external will be addressed at a later stage. Will need to factor in work that is being undertaken by SLE DT. There was a question on the list whether a liaison should be added - this is probably already covered by the expertise currently identified. In relation to 'h' is to consider, no agreement at this stage whether it should or shouldn't be involved in this role. 5. Review & Finalize CWG Principles Document (Martin Boyle) Revised version circulated yesterday proposing a way forward on outstanding items. Proposal to remove comments / redlines on issues that have not received further input / concerns and focus on remaining issues as outlined in email. 7-ii - is compromise language acceptable? Needs further work based on comments on the mailing list, but start from the suggested compromise language. 5-ii - updated language shared on the mailing list. Update to be made to document. 5-iii - bracketed language to be deleted. Clarify IANA Functions Operator - in other contexts this has meant ICANN (needs to be checked in whole document to ensure consistency). 5-iv - new footnote. Avri has suggested a modification on the list - but not clear what ICANN consensus is, but comment will be included in revised version to allow for further discussion. May need to clarify that 'consensus' is not any particular definition of consensus as different groups have different definitions. 5-vi - see comment on the list from Maarten Simon. 6 - ii - to be retained or not? Proposal to delete this part. Automation of IANA functions should not be a principle in relation to the transition. 7 - i - see edits from Maarten Simon. No objections. 10 - see language proposed by Stephanie. Consider using 'should'. Add 'should' to next version. 8.11 - to be taken off-line with Erick. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review. 6. Update on Client Committee (Greg Shatan) See also updated provided on Tuesday. Client committee has received proposed engagement letter from frontrunner which reflects unique circumstances of this relationship. Is still work in progress. Considering rules of engagement - a number of proposed working methods are contained in the engagement letter. Still waiting for permission from one of the firm to share name. Once that has been received, the names of all three firms will be received. Hope to engage firm by end of this week or early next week. Advice expected to be result of discussions, not just answers to written questions. How is the discussion with the law firm expected to be managed? Rules of engagement will be a part of this. Client committee expected to directly interface with lawyers, which may require revisiting the membership of the client committee. Move to more typical working method such as publicly archived mailing list and recorded meetings so that there is a public record. Expected to have interim deliverables that are shared with the full CWG. Will lawyers be in Istanbul? Is under consideration, but cost-benefit analysis will need to be made. 7. AOB No items 8. Closing remarks & Review of Action Items Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin Action (Paul): Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review.

1 0