March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting 23 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893656 Action Item * ACTION: In the few ccTLD agreements with ICANN - Check to see if their are provisions about updating root zone and/or interaction with IANA Notes 23 March 2015 Notes: * Good start to DT-M structure to share with larger team; leave Istanbul prepared to complete overal deliverable * IANA escalation email can be used by anyone; channel used very little * Review of Use-Cases; incorrect address could be Compliance enforcement; other use cases; could be redirected to IANA * Nothing formal in place regarding escalation external to IANA, with the exception of the Ombudsman as listed on <http://iana.org/> iana.org * Question: how does Compliance connect to IANA, or vice-versa? * ICANN Contractual Compliance only enforces contracts for which they are a party two, only gTLDs. non-IANA issues for ccTLD registry issues likely addressed at local level (confirmed by Staffan on ccTLDs, especially those that pre-date ICANN) * * ACTION: In the few ccTLD agreements with ICANN - Check to see if their are provisions about updating root zone and/or interaction with IANA * * Question: Should DT-M connect with DT-B? * gTLDs - ICANN Contractual Compliance is most likely route for gTLDs * In case of emergency, can anyone in the community use the Emergency Number? Marika, understanding # is only for direct customers, but if something is flagged as a real emergency, likely not to ignore it. Is there a means of validation of Direct Customers? Call is routed to whomever is on-call. IANA staff likely will know who they are speaking to. * Incident Mgmt (individual Ry Issue) - should the scope of complaintant be expanded? Others with relevant issues? Separation of function similar to CSC/MRT; should be aligned to narrowly defined interests. Update to draft to allow for channel of non-IANA related issues. * DTC recording: emphasized the process that Kurt Pritz suggested. Described more of an internal to IANA then to ICANN escalation path. Should those steps be listed in DT-M draft? The internal escalation approach works up until a need for separation or if IANA were separated from ICANN structurally and not purely internal solution. Some ccTLDs may have issue with interal escalation, leading up to ICANN Board. Separate escalation from gTLDs and ccTLDs; likely not include ICANN Mgmt as part of overall Escalation path. DT-C does not see CSC going beyond operational/technical issues. * Entry points into ICANN 1) IANA email 2)ICANN Customer Svc (phone, email) 3) Contractual Compliance * Escalation to Ombudsman - should have discretion to mediate and ensure right path of escalation, for example CSC or IAP; optional route to Ombudsman for ccTLDs directly to CSC. Basic process can be transferred in case of separation * Step 7 - IAP - reaching limitation to the unknowns in overall proposal. Will an MRT be included? Is IFM been defined outside DT-M? * Yet to know outcome of CSC - DT-C regarding liaisons, etc. * Some issue relating to IANA could be beyond the CSC, such as a new RFP from IETF. * Append Use Cases as appendix to DT-M draft or provide headline statement for issues to assess how they are dealt with that may not traverse the IANA entry. * Problem Mgmt - understanding the types of failures to be resolved at this level. * Preface - DT-N still WIP giving other parts of proposal yet to be determined.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final Draft of Principles
by Martin Boyle March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, Sorry, I seem to be unable to cut and paste: the text for the first sentence of 7.ii dropped the word "applicable" from the Kane-Lindeberg compromise, so should have read, "For ccTLDs - Respect national laws and processes as well as any applicable consensus ICANN Policies developed by the appropriate PDP mechanism and IETF technical standards." The attachments have been corrected and should be used for any discussion on this document. My apologies for my confusion, it's just I'm not good at multitasking. Martin From: Martin Boyle Sent: 23 March 2015 15:44 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Final Draft of Principles Hi All, Thanks to colleagues for working hard to find satisfactory consensus, I am pleased to be able to share with you an updated version of the principles following our call last Tuesday. You will see on the redlined version attached just three changes since Tuesday (the other comments simply highlight those points agreed at the last meeting): * Chapeau: a revised formulation at the suggestion of Paul Kane (slightly amended by Andrew Sullivan) making it clear what the purpose of these principles is; I'd see this as a clarification and I do not think it changes our understanding of the document. * Footnote 1 to paragraph 5.ii: this is the formulation from the call that seems to have the best support: "The term IANA functions operator means the unit that provides the service." I think that this is particularly controversial, but finds a word that works for the widest range of legal-language backgrounds. * Paragraph 7.ii: this has been a difficult discussion, but Elise (the GAC) and Paul (ccTLDs) have worked hard together to find a formulation that meets their concerns: "ii. For ccTLDs - Respect national laws and processes, as well as any consensus ICANN policies and IETF technical standards." As this is a discussion of specific relevance and interest to those two constituencies, I hope that the full group will recognise the delicate balance here that allows both to accept the consensus proposal and I thank them both for their patience and diligence in this. To make it easier to read, I also attach a cleaner version of the whole text, with simply the latest revisions marked. Martin

1 0

Reading list for Istanbul F2F
by Grace Abuhamad March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, In anticipation of a busy F2F meeting, I¹ve built a Wiki page with a reading list <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894123> and a collection of easy-to-download¹ documents for your preparation. Suggestions and edits are welcome, but the goal is to keep the list limited so that the whole group actually has time to review the documents. * Draft Proposal V2.2.1 * Design Teams > * DT-A Service Level Expectations > * DT-B Appeals Mechanism > * DT-C Customer Standing Committee > * DT-D Authorization > * DT-E SAC69 > * DT-L Transition Plan > * DT-M Escalation Mechanism > * DT-N Periodic Review * Legal Advice > * Sidley Austin Summary Slides > * Sidley Austin Legal Scoping Document * Timeline * Project Plan * Recent Documents > * RySG Statement > * Registries' Guidance to CWG Tip: click on the "download all" button on the bottom left hand side to download all documents at once. Documents File <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894123&sortBy=na me&sortOrder=ascending> Modified <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894123&sortBy=da te&sortOrder=descending> Microsoft Word Document CWG - Draft Transition Plan V2.2.1.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.2.1.docx?api=v2> 26 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File CWG- DT-A - SLE - for discussion in Istanbul - DRAFT.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG-%20DT-A%20-%2 0SLE%20-%20for%20discussion%20in%20Istanbul%20-%20DRAFT.pdf?api=v2> 25 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document DT-C v05 20150323.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/DT-C%20v05%202015 0323.docx?api=v2> 24 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document DT-C v05 20150323_clean.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/DT-C%20v05%202015 0323_clean.docx?api=v2> 24 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document Design Team D report v1.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/Design%20Team%20D %20report%20v1.docx?api=v2> 24 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document DTE - SSAC069_Inventory - 23 March 2015.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/DTE%20-%20SSAC069 _Inventory%20-%2023%20March%202015.docx?api=v2> 24 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document DT M - Content Template - 23 March 2015.docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/DT%20M%20-%20Cont ent%20Template%20-%2023%20March%202015.docx?api=v2> 20 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File TechnicalTransitionPlan-IANAFunctions.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/TechnicalTransiti onPlan-IANAFunctions.pdf?api=v2> 17 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File N-PeriodicReviewofIANAFunctions.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/N-PeriodicReviewo fIANAFunctions.pdf?api=v2> 15 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File CWG Legal Scoping Document.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG%20Legal%20Sco ping%20Document.pdf?api=v2> 14 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File Sidley Preliminary Draft Response (03-18-15).pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/Sidley%20Prelimin ary%20Draft%20Response%20%2803-18-15%29.pdf?api=v2> 4 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150320.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG-CCWG_timeline _20150320.pdf?api=v2> 3 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> Microsoft Word Document RySG IANA Statement 3 22 2015 (Final).docx <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/RySG%20IANA%20Sta tement%203%2022%202015%20%28Final%29.docx?api=v2> 3 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File IANA Stewardship Transition - Guidance 19 March 2015.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/IANA%20Stewardshi p%20Transition%20-%20Guidance%2019%20March%202015.pdf?api=v2> a minute ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File CWG_ProjectPlan_20150320_tasks_only.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG_ProjectPlan_2 0150320_tasks_only.pdf?api=v2> less than a minute ago byGrace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> 1. Drag and drop to upload or browse for files Download All <https://community.icann.org/pages/downloadallattachments.action?pageId=5289 4123> Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: RySG IANA Statement
by Greg Shatan March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

[ON CWG-STEWARDSHIP MAILING LIST] All: This conversation "jumped the tracks" from the CWG-Stewardship mailing list to the CCWG-Accountability mailing list (thanks, Alan, for pointing that out. I am now bring it back to CWG-Stewardship with this post. If future respondents could respond from here on in and not on the CCWG-Accountability thread, I think that would be a good thing. I've taken the liberty of cc'ing those who have already participated in this thread.... Greg Shatan On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: > > Hi all, > > On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > wrote: > I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant interest > in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions. > > However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest of > the multistakeholder community in the CSC. I don't think this is what the > NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key Internet domain name > functions to the global multistakeholder community." A customer only CSC > with no other organized oversight body sounds like a registries paradise, > but not a multistakeholder reality. > > > > I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a customer > committee for the customers, that body isn't the multistakeholder oversight > body. It can't function as such. > > If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer representation, > multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it is not going to be able > to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion. > > cheers > Jordan > > > I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the Accountability > mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS component for > transparency and the ability to raise red flags does not change the overall > nature of the body. > > Alan >

4 3

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-C Meeting 23 March
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-C Meeting 23 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893658 Notes Notes DT C call 23 March 2015 1. Roll call All except Sarah at the call Discussion Overview Document Overview section Section 1. Agreed Section 2. New section. Agreed Section 3. Agreed Ensure in the charter that the CSC is mandated to develop its own working methods Section 4. Agreed Section 5. Suggestion: CSCS and NTIA run in parallel for a while. Hand-over responsibilities of operational oversight role If reporting is different, the reporting would be burdensome. Face in approach, to avoid smooth transition. Agreed but need to take into consideration issues identified above Section 6: Martin comment: avoid to be unduly prescriptive Suggestion: 6, 7, 8 and 9 are linked / should be clustered with section 1 Action re-number section Kim: In which circumstances, should you endeavor to change. Martin: leave the world "will" in. Kurt: Grouping them together supported Include word usually -> shall Other groups will be talking about escalation. At the same time core is cooperation between IANA and CSC. Donna: reference to escalation is included in section 10. Martin: At the end of cooperative process, and only if this fails, escalation process will be pursued. Proposal is to separate it. Staffan: DT M proposal, quite detailed proposal on escalation process. Donna: need to find middle ground Section 7: Agreed Section 8: Agreed Section 9: new. Staffan: do we need to decide it should be "annually"? Donna: to have a regular meeting Stephanie: Annual is included to distinguish from 4. Kurt porposal: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting. Action update language Martin: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (typically annualy) meeting.. Kurt suggestion adopted The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting. Action update language Section 10: Donna: the reason to move away from escalation, the word "esclation" comes with baggage. At the same time needs to be adressed. Martin: Will propose some language 10 bis or 11 bis could read "should resolution processes not remedy failings in the provision of the IANA functions service, CSC can escalate the issue in the process identified bt DT-M Donna: CWG is used to the world "escalation" Martin: concern is that "escaltion" goes out of CSC. Remedial action should stay within the CSC. Staffan: CSC is initial point of escalation. Donna: 1. direct customer can come to CSC 2. Overall management of the IANA, based on reporting. These two remedial should be clearly distinguished. Individual TLD could seek remedial assitance from CSC, which is dealt with in Section 11 Donna: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M Action: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M Section 12. Financial issue Concern raised, some stakeholder group want to participate in CSC. Stephanie: need for a narrow. At the same time it will be contentious also in context of discussion around MRT Staffan: suggest to include two alternatives, to choose for consideration by the CWG Martin: If CSC is doing its job well, it wil be boring. Having liaisons will be unnessary under these circumstances. Not mention the origin of liaisons. The liaisons from other ICANN groups, who should keep their group informed. Donna: Include qualifications: should be kept small, and people on CSC should be qualified Stephanie: Differentiating between members and liaisons gives us some flexibility to define the roles (as martin is suggesting) when we have a sense of what kind of participation other groups are seeking Strike the number and include reference to liaisons with description of role. Martin: issue around "expert" . Suggestion CSC: CSC could seek "expert advisors". Staffan: Frankfurt take away was the sense of capture, by including multi-stakehoderism. at othe level. Suggestion Kim: IANA liaison to CSC. AS part of reporting function need for IANA to have a seat at the table. as non-voting participant. Staffan: supports idea. Martin: more then support. If there issues, this person would be able to explain to what and why Stephanie: not opposed. The CSC will be interacting but to have one at the table . Donna: Steve C suggedsted that RSSAC represent direct customers of naming function. Staffan: include as liaison Martin: Root server operators, special role, and as such should be part of CSC. Kurt: Question whether laisiosn or member? they can always be elevated. Kim: rare direct interaction. At the same time high interest, in the Root zone. Donna: minimum of 2 ccTLD and 2 gTLDs, and liaisons from other groups and 1 IANA liaison. Fundamental principles Should be kept small and members should have relevant expertise Two options: 1. TLDs ( cc and g) + RSSAC Liaisons + 1 IANA Liaison 2. As 1, + other liaisons Section 13 Staffan: Sounds reasonable. Original with MRT, but now back with CSC Related to change on how IANA does its business Kurt: Endgame in escalation process. Depends on composition Martin: section 13 reflects outward facing aspects of the CSC. Need to go out with proposals if changes. Stephanie: 13 should include a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business Review language to ensure it is about day-to day business Action Strike affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions. and replace with Stephanie's suggestions: a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business Section 14 Donna: 14 is about escalation and step in separability, not mandated to make such a change. Add, change to: remediation /escalation process Dependencies section of Document Action Add dependency relating to DT M (Escalation) Kim: IDN repository is not contracted, but falls under responsibility of IANA department. Other example: List of accredited registrars (also maintained by IANA department) Martin: Management of .INT similar to other functions. If considered to be part of role of CSC, customers of INT should also be aprt of CSC Kim: Majority of customer International org. >From general perspective. it is considered part of naming function Keep reference to .INT in. Keep in reference to IDN repository as placeholder Discussion on Table Take out column CSC Perform Row 3.4 Security Plan Kim: if security , not to made public. Martin: Okay with KIm's suggestion. Supports concept of 3rd party auditor, to show it has been gone through. See comment Kim, to be included Row 4.6: leave it in but recognize it is deliverable at he end of contract. Left in to acknowledged it has been looked at. Row 7.2: suggestion to include language that it is being done. Strawman section Kurt suggest to include principles. Need to adjust and evolve over time. Martin: DT M and remedial action are not parallel but different processes. If remedial process fails, the escalation process kicks in. Question: whether the level of detail as in strawman is needed in this document. If Remedial action does not resolve then next step. Donna: let's leave in , understanding that level of detail will be challenged. Process to make complaints Donna for individual cases keep information confidential Kim: in some cases information needs to be remain confidential. Work Plan needs to be on list Onsite visit of IANA facility Is there a need to maintain. Question how often does NTIA visit? Hardly Onsite visit is not needed Review of reporting requirements post-transition Second paragraph: agreed Composition of the CSC: should match the suggestion in Overview Keep in description to delineate differences CSC Take out Travel funding out for Onsite visit. No travel support recommended for CSC

1 0

DT E - SAC69
by Marika Konings March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find attached a first attempt by staff to map SAC69 against the latest draft of the proposal. As always, any comments / edits are welcome. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Design Team M - Content Template for your review
by Marika Konings March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Design Team M, please find attached for your consideration the current thinking of DT M in relation to escalation mechanisms. The DT recognises the interlinkage with DT A and C and as such is conscious that further updates may need to be made as a result of the work of those DTs as well as any feedback received from the full CWG. Please note that DT M would like feedback from the full CWG in Istanbul regarding the escalation steps proposed, after which the steps will be refined accordingly and further details added. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Final Draft of Principles
by Martin Boyle March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hi All, Thanks to colleagues for working hard to find satisfactory consensus, I am pleased to be able to share with you an updated version of the principles following our call last Tuesday. You will see on the redlined version attached just three changes since Tuesday (the other comments simply highlight those points agreed at the last meeting): * Chapeau: a revised formulation at the suggestion of Paul Kane (slightly amended by Andrew Sullivan) making it clear what the purpose of these principles is; I'd see this as a clarification and I do not think it changes our understanding of the document. * Footnote 1 to paragraph 5.ii: this is the formulation from the call that seems to have the best support: "The term IANA functions operator means the unit that provides the service." I think that this is particularly controversial, but finds a word that works for the widest range of legal-language backgrounds. * Paragraph 7.ii: this has been a difficult discussion, but Elise (the GAC) and Paul (ccTLDs) have worked hard together to find a formulation that meets their concerns: "ii. For ccTLDs - Respect national laws and processes, as well as any consensus ICANN policies and IETF technical standards." As this is a discussion of specific relevance and interest to those two constituencies, I hope that the full group will recognise the delicate balance here that allows both to accept the consensus proposal and I thank them both for their patience and diligence in this. To make it easier to read, I also attach a cleaner version of the whole text, with simply the latest revisions marked. Martin

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-A - SLE - DRAFT for discusion in Istanbul
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

DT-N will look at a process to effect such improvement. It will also come from deficiencies identified by the CSC. Alan At 23/03/2015 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Thanks for the share, I presume the "continuous improvement" section >is what the DT-N of Avri intends to provide input towards. > >Cheers! >sent from Google nexus 4 >kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 22 Mar 2015 21:31, "Paul M Kane - CWG" ><<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk> wrote: >Dear all > >As promised I would try and get our interim DRAFT report to you this >week-end - >pleased see attached. > >The goal of this paper is to review the current IANA functions and to capture >the current Service Levels IANA is delivering to the registry community. > >The objective is to recognise the status-quo, document it (in an SLE form) and >to identify any gaps/issues going forward. > >During Istanbul, I sincerely hope we will come up with a list of questions for >IANA to help address the "?" we may have. We will then ask NTIA for a >concession to permit IANA to answer those questions, and I will report back to >the CWG group with answers. > >Hope this is helpful. > >Unfortunately my day job is quite hectic Monday through Wednesday - so please >hold any questions until our Istanbul meeting when I plan >to explain the document in person. > >Kind regards to all > >best > >Paul > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >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

1 0

DT-N update
by Avri Doria March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hi, While waiting for the possible creation of a new DT, I have reworked the wording of DT-N somewhat to try and account for the need to review more that the SOW. This is open for comments in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> and is attached to this email. I also note that DT-N still needs volunteers. Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

8 8