March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list
by John Poole March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*, in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community. The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated. Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal? I therefore object to proposed Design Team G <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature. Best regards, John Poole ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal* On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: > Dear all, > Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available > on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. > Best regards, > Jonathan & Lise > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

4 4

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Sorry, Jordan and anyone else I may have offended or put off. The word was poorly chosen. I certainly agree that no one should settle for less than they have today, and I have no problem with further clarity. I do have a problem with requirement which would force internal changes within IANA at the same time as the transition is going on. That violates the rule of making as few changes as possible in parallel. Alan At 01/03/2015 03:59 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Alan, all: > >Since operational communities want a workable solution, calls of >'hostage' are probably wide of the mark and to be honest don't help >the conversation flow. They could indeed unkindly be described as a >tactic designed to stifle debate. I can't see that being your >intention here, but it could be the effect of your words. > >We, IANA customers, need this system to work because our work in >turn depends on it. The names community should be entitled to at >least as good an outcome from the post-transition settlement as >today's settlement offers, but that baseline is no reason not to >pitch for greater clarity and certainty when we can. > >I've had some private correspondence suggesting there are some real >issues that mean my simple distinction & view isn't necessarily >workable. There may be substantive SLA improvements compared with >status quo that are needed. I don't know yet. If there are, I'm >happy to change my mind and argue they should be done as part of the >transition. > >Given the CWG has spent quite some time on a wide range of issues >that are of less importance than this, I'm sure some time spent >assuring operational quality won't be wasted. > >Will try and write more later today. > >Jordan > >On Monday, 2 March 2015, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >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 <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 | 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>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

12 15

Design team list
by Lise Fuhr March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise

4 3

Agenda for 3 March at 17:00 UTC (Meeting #25)
by Grace Abuhamad March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the 25th meeting on 3 March at 17:00 UTC. All action items from the last call have been completed. I've attached documents for your review before the call. Proposed Agenda for 03/03 1. Opening Remarks 2. Final Review of Design Team Method 3. Review scope of DTA and DTB and launch 4. Review Structure of CWG Proposal v2.0 5. Update on Client Committee work 6. Discuss Principles Path Forward 7. AOB 8. Closing Remarks For your information, we anticipate that the call may be shorter than two hours. Best, Grace

1 0

A liaison from the Board to CWG
by Lise Fuhr March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear All, During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board. Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

22 57

CWG Thurs Q&A Session Response Compilation
by Berry Cobb March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, Please find attached the compilation of all responses to the questions posed from the CWG to the community at its session on Thursday in Singapore. This is divided into 8 sections across the 9 questions, noting that questions 4 & 5 were presented together. The responses are compiled as follows: . Transcripts of persons that spoke at the session in Singapore . Responses submitted by individuals and designated groups . Responses from ccTLDs imported from a survey submitted to them. Note, I have yet to receive the specific ccTLD for which responses are posted, and I will update the tables ASAP when I get them. For now, they are list in generic numerical form. For each response, I attempted to flag its main attributes according to the style of the question being asked. None of the attributes are tallied, but are meant to act as a quick reference to general trends of the responses. Note that the ccTLD responses of "yes" or "no" were provided in most cases from the survey that was constructed for them. All other attribute flags are my individual interpretation of the response. Please send any feedback to the list, and I can adjust the matrix accordingly. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

2 1

Last day to RSVP! 28 confirmed!
by Grace Abuhamad March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Today is the last day to register for the F2F meeting in Istanbul. If you are planning to attend, even if your plans are tentative, please let us know. There are 28 confirmed to date (see below for more information). Link to this Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Dates: 26-27 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * ICANN will offer travel support to the 19 CWG members only <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CWG who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of in-person attendance is 2 March 2015. * The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. * Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. * The F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, in-person attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Members 1. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 2. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 3. Lise Fuhr (ccNSO/ccTLD); 4. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 5. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO/ccTLD); 6. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 7. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 8. Greg Shatan (GNSO); 9. Avri Doria (GNSO); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO/ccTLD) 11. Donna Austin (GNSO) 12. Fatima Cambronero (ALAC) 13. Graeme Bunton (GNSO) 14. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 15. Paul Kane (ccNSO/ccTLD) 16. Elise Lindeberg (GAC) Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) sends his apologies for the meeting. Participants 1. Chuck Gomes (GNSO) 2. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 3. Chris Disspain 4. 5. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 6. Martin Boyle (ccNSO – member ICG) 7. Maarten Simon (ccNSO) 8. Matthew Shears (GNSO) 9. Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva (GAC) 10. Markus Kummer 11. Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO) 12. Kurt Pritz – tentative 13. Boyoung Kim (GAC) From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:50 AM To: "Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] F2F: current list of attendees Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Here below is the list of confirmed members and participants * ICANN will offer travel support to the 19 CWG members only <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CWG who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of in-person attendance is 2 March 2015. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. * Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. * The F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, in-person attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Members 1. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 2. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 3. Lise Fuhr (ccTLD); 4. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 5. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO); 6. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 7. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 8. Greg Shatan (GNSO); 9. Avri Doria (GNSO); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO) Participants 1. Chuck Gomes (GNSO) 2. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 3. Wolfgang Kleinwächter 4. 5. Jonne Soininen 6. 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim 8. 9. Suzanne Woolf 10. 11. Chris Disspain 12. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 13. Martin Boyle (ccNSO – member ICG) 14. Maarten Simon (ccNSO) If you have any questions, please contact me. --Grace

1 0