March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

FW: Emergency escalation process/timeframes
by David Conrad March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Hi, I had asked Elise Gerich the following: During the CWG meeting, there were some questions (in the context of service level expectations) related to the current IANA emergency escalation process. Is there a document describing the process that can be shared? Also, what are the expectations about how long it'll take to get an emergency change pushed through end-to-end (I realize there are a number of non-IANA variables there)? Her response is below. If there are any additional questions, please let me know. Regards, -drc From: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Emergency escalation process/timeframes > Hi David, > > The 24x7 Emergency Process is documented in ICANN¹s proposal in response to > the RFP for the IANA functions. It can be found on pages 117-118 of Volume 1. > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf > > In short, the TLD managers contact a 24x7 support phone number; the call > center will contact an IANA staff member; staff member will contact the > requester to work with them to address the emergency. The Root Zone Partners > have an agreed upon emergency contact process for addressing emergency changes > to the root zone. > > The end-to-end time to complete an emergency process is dependent on the > emergency. The Root Zone Partners anticipate that an emergency change will > happen within hours not days. > > -- Elise

1 0

Draft Summary of Today's DT conversation
by Grace Abuhamad March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, As we progressed through the day with the Design Team updates, Xplane produced some visual notes (here attached). Please note that these are in draft form for your review. Suggestions, edits are welcome. Best, Grace

1 0

Slides Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 1 Session 1 | 26 March
by Grace Abuhamad March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, The slides presented by Leon Sanchez in Session 1 today are loaded on the CWG wiki. They are also attached here for your convenience. Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:49 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 1 Session 1 | 26 March Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 1 Session 1 Meeting on 26 March are available here: Session 1 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Session+1%3A+Welcome+ and+update+on+CCWG-Accountability+and+DT-A> Action Items Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT) Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective. Notes Welcome & Rules of Engagement · Please remember to state your names before speaking · Please refer to the design teams not only by their letter but also reference the topic considered · Orientation document prepared by Xplane has been distributed to all · Objective to produce a short form proposal - to contain highest level of substance, all other details to be moved to appendices. Following model of proposals from other communities to facilitate ICG's work. Representing consensus of the CWG. Consensus will likely require compromise. · F2F meeting - make significant progress in view of producing document for public comment shortly thereafter; review input provided by design teams, focusing on core recommendations and identify possible future work; complete list of any outstanding DTs; review and leverage CCWG work; mapping document circulated yesterday to potentially serve as a tool, not a direction. · When discussing issues, focus on what problem are we trying to solve for. · Presentations of DT follow logical order. · Please keep contributions to 2 minutes or less and avoid repeating points that have already been made. CCWG-Accountability Update · See also PowerPoint presentation · CCWG developed inventory of existing accountability mechanisms in Singapore and identified requirements for enhancing accountability. CCWG is now in the process of designing the solutions that will be stress tested. CCWG has identified 25 stress tests that will need to be met. · Key pillars are empowered community, board, principles in bylaws and independent appeal mechanisms. To enhance accountability, this would include possibility for the community: to remove the board; block bylaw changes; return the budget for review and modification to meet the requirements of the community (including for example for the IANA function); approve fundamental bylaws. These powers to be exercised to a number of mechanisms incl. ATRT, IRP, Standing Community Committee, modifying corporate structure, community veto (these are currently work in progress and under consideration using a template approach to identify main components). · Continue to work with legal advisors · Objective to produce a first document for public comment before BA · IRP to be modified to include reviewing merits of the case and not only process. Community to have standing to initiate proceedings. Could include a panel that would specifically focus on IANA related issues. · CWG may wish to add additional contingencies that could be considered as part of the stress testing. In the stress test work, attempts are made to include the CWG questions that were submitted to the CCWG so it may be worth for the CWG to review these at some point. · CCWG also considering adding ATRT/AoC recommendations to Bylaws · IRP work is critical as it closely links to requirements of CWG - should be agile and effective. · CWG has strong interest in allocation in the budget to the IANA function - is both a requirement as well as a stress test. Is CWG satisfied that work of CCWG will meet the requirements of financial transparency and accountability in relation to the IANA function? · Mechanisms are intended to be used by aggrieved parties when necessary, including the option for the community to hold the management responsible if needed. · CWG to consider mandating the level of detail that needs to be provided concerning the IANA budget. Veto would be ultimate recourse. · How is accountability for just the IANA part for its direct customers and what remedies do the direct customers have to address any issues? CCWG is looking at overall accountability, but is cognizant of requirements of CWG concerning IANA, for example auditing options that would review only IANA and use of IRP. Furthermore DT A and DT M should ensure that IANA is operationally accountable. · Accountability mechanisms should have an escalation path across the suite of accountability mechanisms that is workable and properly 'graded' · DT to empower community to address and resolve the problems before escalation happens. Escalation is a sign of failure - issues should ideally be fixed before it gets to that point. Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT) DT-A Service Level Expectations · See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT A · DT reviewed current SLEs/performance - IANA performing very well · Has DT A gone beyond its remit - shouldn't change how IANA currently operates, for example automation requirement. Automation should not hold up transition. Many processes are already automated - what is still missing? Desire from some registries for end to end automation (IANA API). · Consider removing response time of registries from SLEs · Penalties for non-performance are problematic. Ultimate accountability sanction should not impact the operation of IANA. DT has not been able to identify a penalty that makes sense. · DT recommending what IANA is actually doing today. · Also consider how to manage management and not only the board. · Are these targets or contractually binding arrangements? In the case of IANA, some parties may have contracts, others may not. SLEs should accommodate both - has same standing as SLA, but does not require a formal agreement between the two parties. Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective.

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 1 Session 3 | 26 March
by Brenda Brewer March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 1 Session 3 Meeting on 26 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Session+3%3A++DT-D%2C…> Session 3 Notes DT-D Authorization * See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT D * No authorization function for TLD changes is needed post-transition * This was not totally unanimous: there was one person who disagreed, but said he would not stand in the way * In principle, another DT could take up the work on process steps --> DT-F may be the place for that discussion * We may need to explain why the role is no longer needed, so we need to build in the rationale -- What is the rationale? With automated system deployed in 2011, there is no longer anything for NTIA to check. NTIA checks that the communication channel through which the request is transferred is secure. NTIA also checks that IANA followed its process * Currently, the ICANN Board certifies IANA process on IANA behalf. The Board would prefer not to continue that role. * Could you have one policy that fits both ccTLDs and gTLDs? Overall, need to check all recommendations for how they compare for gTLDs and ccTLDs (if the policy id the same or different) DT L - IANA Functions Transition Plan Actions * See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT L * High level operation / procedures using industry standards and best practices * Retain technical focus, will not consider HR, IT issues, cultural issues, etc. * Should the technical transition framework address the possibility that IANA would be separated into three parts (numbers, protocol parameters, naming) as a result of the transition? The assumption is that it goes all together so probably not worth looking at this now. Also, focus should be on naming only. * DT to review documents received / requested from ICANN (Continuity of Operations Plan / Root KSK Plan) * Where are the non-technical aspects of a possible transition to be dealt with? Not in DT L, but will need to be considered further by CWG as a whole. * Requirement for transition to successor operator (i.e. similar to business continuity plan) should also continue post-transition DT-E - SAC69 * Form of stress test / cross check * See document circulated to CWG mailing list * Each recommendation has been aligned with current sections of the draft proposal and relevant DT * Each DT recommended to review document and review the recommendation related to the respective DT - if recommendations have been mismatched, please let staff know so that the document can be updated accordingly. * Red team = stress testing of the proposal against SAC69 and any other requirements. DT-B - Need for IAP on ccTLD delegation and redelegation * Appeal mechanism for ccTLD put on the table by ccTLDs to be considered - DT created. * Limited survey in January showed agreement that there should be an appeal mechanism, however the details were not clear and no consensus to move forward. * Survey of whole ccTLD community to see whether view is held across ccTLD community that no IAP for ccTLDs is needed. * Awaiting closure of the survey * Will be up to ccTLD community to show strong support that an IAP for ccTLDs would be needed, as part of the transition otherwise it should maybe be considered on a parallel track by ccTLDs. * Verify that CCWG is covering IAP (cross-checking), but no overlap with what DT B is currently doing. * Until survey is completed, no further work expected to be undertaken. * For issues / disputes outside delegation / redelgation, IAP could be used provided that panelists are available with expertise in IANA DT N - Periodic Reviews * Scope template has basically been completed. * Compiling reviews that are foreseeing in other DTs to use as a starting point (including timing, who does it, etc) * Open for anyone to contribute and review (see <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…) * Keeping big picture / overview will be important to ensure that all pieces fit together * DT to review guidance document which contains a number of suggestions * Already requirements for audits - to consider how this may/should continue and how should review those? DT F - Relationship NTIA, Root Zone Maintainer and IANA * Alan Greenberg to lead * Additional volunteers David Conrad, Cheryl Langdon-Orr Input on DTs * Any DTs that you'd like to see? any further progress required to produce a response to RFP? etc * Jordan Carter: there should be a DT to design a Charter/Terms of reference for the CSC * Chuck Gomes: there should be a DT for the IANA budget. There are two parts: input into the current budget proces (short term) and longer-term for post-transition. The third component is to coordinate and inform CCWG on budget drivers. * Keep track of how pages we are generating for a proposal * Support for the red team * Need a mechanism to ensure that the CWG/CCWG coordination --> Cheryl * Stephanie Duchesneau: DT on non-technical aspects of a transition (specifically, funding to support a separated entity) * Look into coordination with the two groups * Sexy pictures needed -- long proposal is a turn off Action Items None

1 0

DT-F Lead Needed
by Grace Abuhamad March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, On our last call, on Thursday, we noted an action to make a call for a DT-F lead. This DT is listed as a Priority 1 DT, so we would like to identify a lead and a working group as soon as possible. As a reminder, here is an excerpt about DT-F from the Status document on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List Design Team F <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#F> Relationship between the NTIA, IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer LeadTBC StatusStep 0, Priority 1 (Provisional) Note Best, Grace

5 4

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 1 Session 2 | 26 March
by Brenda Brewer March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 1 Session 2 Meeting on 26 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Session+2%3A+DT-C+CSC…> Session 2 Notes DT-C Customer Standing Committee ? See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT C ? Customers of IANA would develop charter for CSC - would not come back to CWG. Could this work also be done by a Design Team as part of the CWG? ? Reconciliation with other DTs will eventually need to happen ? CSC needs to be in place after transition ? Concern about lack of multi-stakeholder involvement - consider minimal MS representation in CSC. Should be open and transparent. CSC is not the multi-stakeholder piece of the puzzle - primary function is customer related, with all proceedings being open. ? What oversight is there of the CSC? ? Who approves the charter? GNSO & ccNSO? ? Should timeframes on SLEs for reporting be changed? To be aligned with DT a outcomes. ? Indemnification for members appointed to CSC? ? Concern about current organizational structure of IANA (within GDD) - to be considered as part of other discussions. ? Who appoints CSC members? Idea is that these are selected by GNSO and ccNSO, but not necessarily limited to members of GNSO and ccNSO to also accommodate those that currently are not members. ? Role / appointment of liaisons to be further considered ? Consider IAB as another direct customer? ? CSC does not have any decision-making actions - anything that would need to be decided would be filtered up to other parts. ? Is Community Council as being developed by CCWG equivalent to the role that was originally foreseen for the MRT, which would form the multi-stakeholder component? ? DT C and DT M to connect to clarify escalation mechanisms DT-M Escalation ? Chuck's team! Been working just around 1 week do far ? Suggest that the group split their work into the day-to-day and the emergency response (this includes an operational problem with key change that 'needs to be fixed yesterday' and systemic failure) ? There is an emergency number that functions 24/7/365. It routes to the IANA officer of the day. There is usually a 4h response ? As a group, CWG should keep close eye on where there are overlaps

1 0

DT Summary Presentations
by Marika Konings March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached the DT summary presentations that we'll be using for the Design Team sessions today. Best regards, Marika

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 1 Session 1 | 26 March
by Brenda Brewer March 26, 2015

March 26, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 1 Session 1 Meeting on 26 March are available here: Session 1 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Session+1%3A+Welcome+… ntability+and+DT-A> Action Items Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT) Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective. Notes Welcome & Rules of Engagement * Please remember to state your names before speaking * Please refer to the design teams not only by their letter but also reference the topic considered * Orientation document prepared by Xplane has been distributed to all * Objective to produce a short form proposal - to contain highest level of substance, all other details to be moved to appendices. Following model of proposals from other communities to facilitate ICG's work. Representing consensus of the CWG. Consensus will likely require compromise. * F2F meeting - make significant progress in view of producing document for public comment shortly thereafter; review input provided by design teams, focusing on core recommendations and identify possible future work; complete list of any outstanding DTs; review and leverage CCWG work; mapping document circulated yesterday to potentially serve as a tool, not a direction. * When discussing issues, focus on what problem are we trying to solve for. * Presentations of DT follow logical order. * Please keep contributions to 2 minutes or less and avoid repeating points that have already been made. CCWG-Accountability Update * See also PowerPoint presentation * CCWG developed inventory of existing accountability mechanisms in Singapore and identified requirements for enhancing accountability. CCWG is now in the process of designing the solutions that will be stress tested. CCWG has identified 25 stress tests that will need to be met. * Key pillars are empowered community, board, principles in bylaws and independent appeal mechanisms. To enhance accountability, this would include possibility for the community: to remove the board; block bylaw changes; return the budget for review and modification to meet the requirements of the community (including for example for the IANA function); approve fundamental bylaws. These powers to be exercised to a number of mechanisms incl. ATRT, IRP, Standing Community Committee, modifying corporate structure, community veto (these are currently work in progress and under consideration using a template approach to identify main components). * Continue to work with legal advisors * Objective to produce a first document for public comment before BA * IRP to be modified to include reviewing merits of the case and not only process. Community to have standing to initiate proceedings. Could include a panel that would specifically focus on IANA related issues. * CWG may wish to add additional contingencies that could be considered as part of the stress testing. In the stress test work, attempts are made to include the CWG questions that were submitted to the CCWG so it may be worth for the CWG to review these at some point. * CCWG also considering adding ATRT/AoC recommendations to Bylaws * IRP work is critical as it closely links to requirements of CWG - should be agile and effective. * CWG has strong interest in allocation in the budget to the IANA function - is both a requirement as well as a stress test. Is CWG satisfied that work of CCWG will meet the requirements of financial transparency and accountability in relation to the IANA function? * Mechanisms are intended to be used by aggrieved parties when necessary, including the option for the community to hold the management responsible if needed. * CWG to consider mandating the level of detail that needs to be provided concerning the IANA budget. Veto would be ultimate recourse. * How is accountability for just the IANA part for its direct customers and what remedies do the direct customers have to address any issues? CCWG is looking at overall accountability, but is cognizant of requirements of CWG concerning IANA, for example auditing options that would review only IANA and use of IRP. Furthermore DT A and DT M should ensure that IANA is operationally accountable. * Accountability mechanisms should have an escalation path across the suite of accountability mechanisms that is workable and properly 'graded' * DT to empower community to address and resolve the problems before escalation happens. Escalation is a sign of failure - issues should ideally be fixed before it gets to that point. Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT) DT-A Service Level Expectations * See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT A * DT reviewed current SLEs/performance - IANA performing very well * Has DT A gone beyond its remit - shouldn't change how IANA currently operates, for example automation requirement. Automation should not hold up transition. Many processes are already automated - what is still missing? Desire from some registries for end to end automation (IANA API). * Consider removing response time of registries from SLEs * Penalties for non-performance are problematic. Ultimate accountability sanction should not impact the operation of IANA. DT has not been able to identify a penalty that makes sense. * DT recommending what IANA is actually doing today. * Also consider how to manage management and not only the board. * Are these targets or contractually binding arrangements? In the case of IANA, some parties may have contracts, others may not. SLEs should accommodate both - has same standing as SLA, but does not require a formal agreement between the two parties. Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective.

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)
by Grace Abuhamad March 25, 2015

March 25, 2015

Here below is the statement from the CCWG-Acct meeting that just concluded on Tuesday. Let's keep the productive vibes in the meeting room for tomorrow! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: March 25, 2015 at 17:13:42 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>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015) Dear all, This is to inform you that the CoChairs statement (pasted below) may be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en A video interview with CoChair Thomas Rickert is also available - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE These links will be added to your wiki pages. Thanks, Best regards Alice CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Statement Istanbul, 25 March 2015 | Thomas Rickert, León Sánchez & Mathieu Weill <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#><https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#> Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…> met in Istanbul, Turkey, on 23-24 March 2015. The meeting<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> was attended in-person by 42 members and participants. A number of participants and observers joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. Three Advisors<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors> also participated. Guided by the four basic building blocks<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Building+Blocks> identified at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the group further discussed and refined accountability mechanisms that need to be either implemented or, at least, committed to before the transition of the IANA stewardship can take place. The meeting made progress on three main areas: * Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values; * Strengthening the existing independent review process; * Mechanisms for community empowerment. Specifically, the group discussed changes that should be made to the Mission and Core Values inICANN's Bylaws. For example, the group discussed how key provisions of the Affirmation of Commitments<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30…> (AoC) could be reflected into the Bylaws. Additionally, the group worked on strengthening the existing independent review process suggesting improvements to its accessibility and affordability, and discussed process design including establishment of a standing panel with binding outcomes and panel composition (diversity etc.). The IRP panel decisions would be guided by ICANN's Mission and Core Values. With regards to mechanisms for community empowerment, the group identified powers and associated mechanisms including the ability to: * recall the ICANN Board of Directors; * approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws, Mission and Core Values; * reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and budget, where the Board has failed to appropriately consider community input. The CCWG-Accountability supported the concept of a Fundamental Bylaw that would provide additional robustness to key provisions. The Fundamental Bylaw would apply to: * the mission; * the independent review process; * the power to veto Bylaw changes; * new community powers such as recall of the Board and the right of the community to veto certain Board actions. Changes to the Fundamental Bylaws would require high standards for approval by the community. The notion of an empowered community involved discussion of community representation, i.e. who constitutes the community. The CCWG-Accountability is also aware that to wield these new powers, the community, however it is constituted, must itself meet high standards of accountability. ICANN's accountability would also be enhanced by ensuring its operations and processes are more globally inclusive. The group has engaged two law firms to provide independent legal advice and confirm feasibility of the suggested frameworks. The firms are Adler & Colvin and Sidley & Austin. As work progresses, all recommendations will be subject to the stress tests against contingencies already identified. The stress test methodology has been successfully tested against the draft accountability mechanisms. The CCWG-Accountability is confident that their proposed mechanisms will satisfy the needs of the CWG-Stewardship1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftn1> as they look to stronger accountability protections. The CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs met to update and fully brief each other on the progress made so far. They outlined key areas of accountability that the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs considered are most relevant for the current and ongoing work of the CWG-Stewardship. The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs will brief the CWG-Stewardship in the opening part of their face-to-face meeting on Thursday, 26 March. Next Steps: The CCWG-Accountability will continue refining its recommendations. The community is expected to provide feedback during a public comment period to be held before ICANN 53, Buenos Aires meeting. The results of the public comment period will inform further deliberations during that meeting. The group is developing an engagement plan to ensure its proposals are widely known and understood, and to encourage comprehensive response to proposals during the public comment period. The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs recognize the outstanding volunteer work that has produced these substantive proposals in a very short period of time. The community's effort has been exceptional. About the CCWG-Accountability The CCWG-Accountability was established to ensure that ICANN's accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of the historical relationship with the U.S. Government. The group has divided its work into two work streams (WS): * WS1 is focused on identifying mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition; * WS2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. The CCWG-Accountability consists of 177 people<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823970>, organized as 26 members<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, 151 participants<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>, who participate as individuals, and 46 mailing list observers<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Mailing+List+Observers>. The group also includes one ICANN Board liaison, one ICANN staff representative, and one former ATRT member who serves as a liaison. In addition, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two groups. Seven Advisors<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> have also been appointed to contribute research and advice, and to bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich the CCWG-Accountability discussion. The CCWG-Accountability is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CCWG-Accountability, can join as a participant or observers. Participants or observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CCWG-Accountability or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. For more information on the CCWG-Accountability or to view meeting archives and draft documents, please refer to their dedicated wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. A video interview with CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Thomas Rickert can be seen here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE>. ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftnref1> Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions _______________________________________________ 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

3 2

Mapping document
by Lise Fuhr March 25, 2015

March 25, 2015

Dear All, As you may be aware, we received two substantive inputs from direct customers of the naming functions. In response to this, we asked staff to compare that input with the current output of the relevant Design Teams. You will find the results of that comparison attached. We believe that this work may be a useful aid in our review of the Design Teams work during tomorrow's meeting and accordingly we encourage you to review it beforehand. Please do note that this is a draft, so should there be any information overlooked or inconsistencies, feel free to flag those. Best, Jonathan & Lise

2 1