April 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Two additional webinars on 6-7 May
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Following a request from our GAC member Elise Lindeberg and the two briefing webinars on 24 April <https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw> (last week), the Chairs are going to hold two additional webinars on 6-7 May. The announcement will be posted within the next 24h, but I wanted to share the information with the group now. The two additional webinars will be held on: 6 May from 13:00 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150506T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) 7 May from 06:00 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150507T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) These webinars will focus more on the content of the proposal and less on the work process that led to the development of the 2nd draft proposal. The main value of these webinars is that they will allow for further questions and answers from the community, while still giving the community enough time to submit comments in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. Brenda will send calendar notices to the group with call details. Talk to you all on the CWG call on Thursday, Grace

8 32

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Greg Shatan May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Hi, I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability. Best, Ed Morris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

5 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May
by Seun Ojedeji April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Apr 2015 18:49, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > I agree with you that ccTLD redelegations can be more sensitive than gTLD delegations, I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed. Do you disagree? > > SO: +1 to this as well (I presume as directed mean based on policies/guidelines). A question one may want to ask is whether the current IANA department has not been "editing the zone file as directed"(using your words) Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

PTI board: form follows function
by Milton L Mueller April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Paul Let me take issue with your comment, because I think our perspectives on PTI are basically in alignment but I think there is some misunderstanding of the role of its board. This post provides a better articulation of the function of PTI which I think provides some guidance as to what its board should be. > ICANN Corporate Board control the funding available to PTI (Board and > Staff) ..... PTI only gains its authority to act from ICANN Corporate > Board (so ICANN Corporation's Board must reserve the right to > fire/sack/spill members of the PTI Board) .... No. The point of creating a separate legal entity is to put some distance between PTI and ICANN. If PTI is simply a passive entity and all its board members are directly under the control of ICANN Inc. there is no point in having a separate legal entity or a separate board. You get duplicate structures with none of the advantages (some autonomy, more focused accountability). (See below for more discussion of the need for legal separation). You also reinforce ICANN's ingrained mentality that it should have a monopoly on the performance of the IANA functions. This monopoly attitude is unhealthy and is probably the main reason why we need legal separation. We can make this point clearer by contrasting the PTI affiliate option with complete divestiture of IANA functions operator (IFO). In that case, IANA would be a small separate company completely independent of ICANN, and ICANN, the IETF and RIRs would merely contract with it and pay it to perform those services. IFO would be bound to implement ICANN policies by virtue of its contract. And if its performance was bad, you just have an RFP and see if anyone can do it better. IFO would be seen as a competitive, largely clerical service not as some great and powerful wizard of Oz-like magical capability. Some people have expressed negative views about complete divestiture of IANA because of fears of "capture" or some such. But the more I think about it, the sillier these concerns seem. If IFO is a mere contractor there would be nothing to capture. The IFO's powers and duties would be defined completely by its contract with ICANN and it would have no latitude to do anything to the DNS root or assume any powers that ICANN (or the other IANA customers) didn’t want it to have. A contractor would never be able to make policy. it would be legally bound to edit the DNS root zone in ways that implement ICANN's policies. And an IFO that tried to capture anything would be quickly fired and replaced. This completely separate IFO would have its own board and management, but its services would be completely controlled by ICANN, RIRs, IETF via contract. That, in my opinion, is what we want. ICANN does not want, or need, to control the PTI board. It needs to get a service executed, efficiently and accurately. And it needs to focus on its own business, which is policy development and enforcement. Now PTI is some kind of weird middle ground between a fully divested PTI (which is frankly what we should be doing) and an internal department (which imho would be a long term accountability disaster for Internet governance). We are trying to get some of the advantages of separability by creating an independent legal affiliate, without fully spinning off the IFO. The advantages of PTI are real: there will be a contract, the structure will already be separated in case we do need to switch providers, and we have put a significant dent into ICANN's proprietary interest in a monopoly on IFO provision. Here's the key point: If we are going to occupy that middle ground, it is imperative that PTI have an independent board or management, and that we have some layer of insulation between ICANN board and PTI management or board. (I say "management or board") because I am still weighing the California nonprofit and the Delaware LLC options). --MM

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Seun Ojedeji April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Forwarding my response to Milton on this subject matter (I like to note it's a personal view) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> Date: 30 Apr 2015 18:23 Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu> Hi Prof, I read the mail before responding as well(as you know I am also on that list) and you are right that there is a concern which I also agree with. However, it's our interpretation of the concern that I think we disagree on. Below is the exact wording of the IAB chair: " ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. " The use of the phrase "right now" is what I think makes the difference in our interpretation of the situation. At ICANN 49, a question was raised during public forum whether the NTIA contract was weightier than the existing MoU; i.e if NTIA decide to assign IANA to another operator, can the respective communities(based on their current mou) insist that ICANN has meet up with their SLA and by so should continue to operate their function? There was no definite response to that question and I think that is what is happening in this current situation; if ICANN signs such SLA, that would indirectly imply double oversight body. The specific section below is what buttresses my point: " It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. " So how can ICANN sign an agreement reflecting the statement above without actually either getting permission from NTIA OR having the current agreement with NTIA terminated. The requirements listed by IAB chair were developed in response to ICG request and that process is on-going, so I don't see why implementation should begin before NTIA's approval. Overall, I think the important question has been asked on the IANA-plan list which is to know the actual text in the new SLA that ICANN can not agree to "at the moment". Until such information is made available, ordinary community member like me (and you?) would only be speculating. So my interpretation of the issue may be largely incorrect but it's based on the information currently available to me. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Apr 2015 17:36, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > Seun: > > I suggest that you read the letter from the IETF people. > > > > “It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already > > part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating > > details of that existing agreement. > > > > I could be wrong, but I don’t think IETF would be publicizing this the way > it is if it were not concerned. > > Given the precedent established with CRISP, ICANN’s refusal to accept an > agreement that, in IETF’s opinion, already existed, is troublesome to say > the least. > > --MM > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of > *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:55 AM > *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition > > > > Hi Milton, > > Thanks for this share, I am not sure what was posted on the IANA-plan list > by the IAB chair implied that ICANN is refusing IETF from moving it's > function if required. > I understood his message to imply ICANN is refusing to sign and agreement > of such ability because they already have a commitment on such with the > NTIA. > I am not a lawyer, but I think it makes a lot of sense to activate such > agreement at the termination of the other. > > A question to ask is whether ICANN is committed to signing the SLA once > NTIA relinquishes it's current agreement. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 30 Apr 2015 14:27, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > > > > Dear NCSG: > > It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice > of its IANA functions operator. > > > > Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the > numbers community > <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> > will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the > numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its > IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to > second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. > Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF > Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> > noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level > agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change > in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. > > > > These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is > telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not > accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as > part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both > cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected > communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the > NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, > setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an > acceptable transition proposal. > > > > The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will > have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether > each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have > the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability > is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a > principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by > the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them > separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). > Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a > monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. > > > > Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most > effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are > locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA > responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these > actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will > forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event > already. > > > > Milton L Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > >

1 0

Agenda for Thursday 30 April at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear all, We are returning to our regular call schedule! Here below is the agenda for the call on Thursday 30 April at 11:00 UTC: Proposed Agenda 1. Opening Remarks 2. Outreach Efforts a. Recent Webinars b. Upcoming Webinars c. Outreach to IANAPLAN & CRISP d. CCWG-Accountability Coordination e. Members' outreach summary 3. Status of Proposal and Open Issues a. Submission to FY16 Budget & Operating Plan Public Comment Period b. DT-A on SLEs c. DT-F on Root Zone Environment Relationships d. PTI Board Composition e. Section IV (Cheryl update) f. Other issues? 4. CCWG-Accountability Dependencies 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

6 6

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #43 30 April
by Brenda Brewer April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #43 on 30 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897473 Action Items Action item: Submit comment to public comment forum by deadline. Action item: CWG members encouraged to share further comments and input on this issue. Action item: CWG encouraged to review punch list and start thinking about items on the punch list and how to deal with those. Action item: CWG Chairs to discuss dependencies further with CCWG Chairs in meeting later today. Action item: Chairs to reach out to ICANN Finance team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism Notes Roll call based on AC attendance. No one on audio only. 1. Opening Remarks * Number of outstanding items have been identified in the punch list - further work of the client committee expected * Any concerns or issues that have arisen as a result of the public comment period? None at this stage. 3 Comments have been submitted to date (see <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1…> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1…) 2. Outreach Efforts * See overview of outreach efforts shared during the call * Slide deck that has been used for webinars can also be used by members / participants in their respective outreach efforts (see <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897455> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52897455) * Two additional webinars have been scheduled on 6 and 7 May to allow for additional questions. If additional time is available, chairs could consider answering questions that have been raised to date in the public comment forum. * Call earlier today with CRISP Team - planning to have other calls with CRISP Team and outreach to IANAPLAN to enhance understanding of respective proposals and discuss possible implications for the different communities. * Continued co-ordination with CCWG Chairs - Chairs co-ordination call scheduled for later today * Role of ICG to co-ordinate, but CWG-Chairs can assist by ensuring clarification where needed and dialogue with other proposers. * Members' outreach summary: two webinars organized for ccTLD community (organizers: Paul Kane and Staffan Jonson) - some concern expressed on how proposal can be considered in current timeframe. ALAC organized a webinar for the At-Large community. GAC will have two conferences on CWG proposal on 5th May. ICANN's GSE team organised with NCSG a civil society webinar on the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability. RySG has discussed it during its meeting last week and is planning a webinar next week which will also be offered to the RrSG. 3. Status of Proposal and Open Issues a. Submission to FY16 Budget & Operating Plan Public Comment Period Deadline for comments is approaching. Proposed input has been shared with the CWG (taking work of DT that is included in the draft proposal and submit that to the public comment forum). No objections received to submitting the comment as proposed. Action item: Submit comment to public comment forum by deadline. b. DT-A on SLEs DT has requested release of work/process flow charts to inform further conversations. Approval needs to be provided by NTIA for this release. Following that, further work will be undertaken on this issue. Concerns expressed by others concerning the time it is taking to provide the relevant information to move this work forward. Is there any link between confidential reports that are currently provided by IANA to NTIA and SLEs? If so, how are these expected to be dealt with. DT A is currently only aware of day-to-day transactions, not any other activities. Work flow charts may provide further insights into where other SLEs may be required. Confidential reports contain registry information that may be sensitive and as such are kept confidential - something that may need further consideration. c. DT-F on Root Zone Environment Relationships There are a number of loose ends that will need to be addressed, in particular the overlap with DT C with regards to changes to the root zone architecture. Need direction on who/how to handle this. Action item: Alan to list remaining issues so that the CWG can decide how to best tackle those. d. PTI Board Some discussion has already commenced on the list - form should follow function. CWG should decide what the role of the PTI Board is before deciding who is on it. Board derives from the fact that PTI would be a separate legal entity - as a result, minimal legal function. See also Sidley memo. If CWG would go further than minimal legal function, CWG would need to take into account any accountability aspects that may need to be addressed. CWG could consider minimum Board but leave option open to expand should additional functions be identified at a later stage. Other communities may also have input on this topic. For example, if other communities would decide to contract directly with PTI, this could result in additional responsibilities? To maximize separability, all assets should sit with PTI (incl. PTI being party to the contracts). Checks and balances would come from ICANN - hence the importance of CCWG-Accountability work. Selection of PTI Board members is important issue based on input received to date. Not decided yet how board members would be selected. CWG is conscious that this is an area of sensitivity, but as a wholly owned subsidiary / affiliate it may be less of a concern? Also, CWG has indicated preference for 'lightweight' solution so that should also be factored in. Additional input on this topic may also be received in response to public comment. Action item: CWG members encouraged to share further comments and input on this issue. e. Section IV (Cheryl update) Cannot apply stress test scenarios of CCWG (currently on version 10.3) until mechanisms and structures have been designed / agreed upon. A subset of those stress tests are related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Avri and Cheryl reviewed stress tests and contingencies that are in Section IV which seem to cover all that is needed from the perspective of the stress tests that have been developed by the CCWG. Further input may be received in response to the public comment forum. f. Other issues? 4. Client Committee Update & Issues Call scheduled today at 14.00 UTC. a. Memo on PTI Board & Costs Circulated to CWG list b. Punch list New punch list of open items has been circulated. Will be discussed on client committee call today and possible further refined, following which it will be circulated to CWG list. c. CCWG Dependencies Client committee keeps on monitoring CCWG dependencies. Sidley also provides support to the CCWG. d. Other No major outstanding items. Action item: CWG encouraged to review punch list and start thinking about items on the punch list and how to deal with those. 5. CCWG-Accountability Dependencies Ongoing engagement with CCWG will be required as work progresses. IANA Function Review bylaw (AoC type review) - AoC reviews are not expected to be dealt with as 'fundamental' bylaws from the CCWG perspective. IANA Function Review could be dealt with separately as a fundamental bylaw if needed / desirable. Separation process function - does that need a separate bylaw or would that get included in the IANA Function Review? If it is separate, would the CCWG present it, or would the CWG do so? Action item: CWG Chairs to discuss dependencies further with CCWG Chairs in meeting later today. 6. AOB * Frequency of meetings - can we go back to 1 meeting per week? Consider using 2nd meeting time to dig into specific topics that need resolution. Easier to cancel meetings than to reschedule. Maybe leave on the schedule, but decide day prior to the meeting whether or not to go ahead with the meeting. Agreed to keep placeholder for meetings - chairs to decide at least 24 hours ahead of meeting whether meeting should be cancelled. * Send note to ICANN Finance Team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. This would be separate from the public comment submission. Action item: Chairs to reach out to ICANN Finance team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. * How should work continue on open items such as Annex L / Separation Mechanism? Chairs to further consider, but DT leads or individuals should feel encouraged to list open items so that these can be cross-checked with the punch list. Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism

1 0

Proposed Submission to FY16 Budget & Op Plan Public Comment
by Jonathan Robinson April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

All, Please see below for proposed submission to the FY16 Budget & Operating Plan Public Comment -- On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship, we would like to submit the attached recommendations, specifically with regard to the costs for IANA operations. The CWG-Stewardship is developing a proposal on the IANA Stewardship Transition, focussed on the names related functions. As part of the CWGs recommendations for future IANA operations, the CWG-Stewardship tasked a subgroup (design team) to specifically look into budget-related recommendations. This subgroup worked with ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez to develop our recommendations. We would like to thank Xavier and his team for working with the CWG-Stewardship on this topic. The CWG recommendations are still in the process of being reviewed (including through the public comment process relating to the CWG draft proposal) but, because of the timing, the CWG believes that the draft recommendations should be submitted to the record of the public comments relating to FY16. The recommendations are provided in the attached document. For further drafts and background information on the CWG-Stewardships work on this topic, please see https://community.icann.org/x/2RwnAw. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship -- Thanks, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 29 April 2015 16:28 To: Lise Fuhr; 'Jonathan Robinson' Subject: Re: SV: Submission to FY16 Budget & Op Plan Public Comment Hi Chairs, Here attached is the revised document (I removed the FY15 breakdown and added a footnote to reference its location on the Wiki, per Chucks suggestion). Below is the text I had originally drafted, with Lises text included. Will you send to CWG list or would you like me to do so? On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship, we would like to submit the attached recommendations with regard to costs for IANA operations. The CWG-Stewardship is developing a proposal for the names portion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. As part of it recommendations for future IANA operations, the CWG-Stewardship tasked a subgroup to specifically look into budget-related recommendations. This subgroup worked with ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez to develop these recommendations. We would like to thank Xavier and his team for working with the CWG-Stewardship on this topic. The recommendations are still in process of the public comments of the CWG draft proposal, but because of the timing the CWG found that they should be submitted to the public comments for FY16. The recommendations are provided in the attached document. For further drafts and background information on the CWG-Stewardships work on this topic, please see https://community.icann.org/x/2RwnAw. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Best, Grace From: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 2:19 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Subject: SV: Submission to FY16 Budget & Op Plan Public Comment Hi both, I think we should submit this but is it clear enough in the recommendation that we need further detail than provided by Xavier? Should we include that this is also a part of the CCWG work/dependencies? I have the following to the text: On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship, we would like to submit the attached recommendations with regard to costs for IANA operations. The CWG-Stewardship is developing a proposal for the names portion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. As part of it recommendations for future IANA operations, the CWG-Stewardship tasked a subgroup to specifically look into budget-related recommendations. This subgroup worked with ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez to develop these recommendations. We would like to thank Xavier and his team for working with the CWG-Stewardship on this topic. The recommendations are still in process of the public comments of the CWG draft proposal, but because of the timing the CWG found that they should be submitted to the public comments for FY16. The recommendations are provided in the attached document. For further drafts and background information on the CWG-Stewardships work on this topic, please see https://community.icann.org/x/2RwnAw. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Best, Lise Fra: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sendt: 28. april 2015 20:02 Til: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson Emne: Submission to FY16 Budget & Op Plan Public Comment Prioritet: Høj Hi Lise and Jonathan, I am going through my to-do list for the CWG and realized that we have not yet submitted the DT-O (Budget) comments to the FY16 Budget & Op Plan Public Comment. This public comment closes on may 1st, so if you would still like to submit, we need to do this by the end of the week (preferably before Thursdays call). Heres some suggested text and the attachment excerpted from the CWG 2nd Draft Proposal. On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship, we would like to submit the attached recommendations with regard to costs for IANA operations. The CWG-Stewardship is developing a proposal for the names portion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. As part of it recommendations for future IANA operations, the CWG-Stewardship tasked a subgroup to specifically look into budget-related recommendations. This subgroup worked with ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez to develop these recommendations. We would like to thank Xavier and his team for working with the CWG-Stewardship on this topic. The recommendations are provided in the attached document. For further drafts and background information on the CWG-Stewardships work on this topic, please see https://community.icann.org/x/2RwnAw. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Please let me know how you would like to proceed, and whether you would like for me to submit this on your behalf. Thanks, Grace

3 2

Fwd: [client com] PTI Board and Costs
by Greg Shatan April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

All: I am forwarding a memo from Sidley regarding the PTI board responsibilities and and associated costs. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:44 PM Subject: [client com] PTI Board and Costs To: "cwg-client(a)icann.org" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear All, Attached is a memo regarding the responsibilities of the PTI board and also associated legal costs of maintaining that entity. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP *555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
by Greg Shatan April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

I thought this would be of interest to the CWG as well. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org These may be of interest to the community Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> *From:* Joelle Tessler [mailto:JTessler@ntia.doc.gov] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Joelle Tessler *Subject:* Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit *Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling* *Assistant Secretary for Communications and InformationInternet2 Global SummitWashington, D.C.April 28, 2015* http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… *--As Prepared for Delivery--* I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning. However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.” Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago. The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today? The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1] <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secret…> ” >From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making. Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving. The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved. Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion.” Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control. However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.” What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation. Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues. This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites. The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed. When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community. I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress. Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root. The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening. Joelle Tessler Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce jtessler(a)ntia.doc.gov _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0