June 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Greg Shatan June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

I'm fine with that. I'm primarily concerned with avoiding the (unintentional) confusion and ambiguity that the Managing Director title creates (unless you are in the U.K., in which case it's as clear as the boot on your saloon). Greg On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> wrote: > Seems to me the top officer title is something that could be left to the > company to decide. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:43:40 PM > *To:* Donna Austin > *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Client > *Subject:* Re: [client com] [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition: IANA > Managing Director > > Most likely, Elise would get a "better title" and be President of PTI. > That is the default title for the head of a corporation, profit or non (and > sometimes even a division -- see Akram Attalah, President, Global Domains > Division). Elise wouldn't be the VP, IANA because she would no longer be a > Vice President (and employee) of ICANN; instead she'd be the top dog of > PTI. (I continue to push against "Managing Director" because it has no > meaning or consistent usage in any US corporate context, except in the > banking and fund world, where it has a different meaning.) > > An alternative often seen when referring to the top employee in US > non-profits is "Executive Director." Subject to legal advice, that might > make everyone including me happy (though I personally find President to be > a more desirable and impressive title). I'm sure either President or > Executive Director would provide continuity and comfort while also > providing clarity as to function in a California Public Benefit Corporation. > > Greg > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Donna Austin < > Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com> wrote: > >> From a RySG perspective, we had provided comments that supported PTI, >> but on the premise that this would allow the continuation and management of >> the IANA Department in much the same way as we know it today. That’s one of >> the reasons we supported an ‘insider’ board because we felt this was one >> way to maintain some semblance of the IANA Department that we know now and >> which provides services considered by the customers to be satisfactory.. >> >> >> >> I may have a different view from Chuck on this, but I would think that >> the inclusion of the VP, IANA (currently Elise Gerich) or as ‘IANA Managing >> Director’ if a title change is required, would make sense in ensuring >> continuity and also providing some level of comfort for current employees. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* >> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager >> >> >> >> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* >> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles >> *P* +1 310 890 9655 >> *P* +61 3 9866 3710 >> *E* donna.austin(a)ariservices.com >> *W* www.ariservices.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=…> >> >> >> >> *Follow us on **Twitter* >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservice…> >> >> >> >> *The information contained in this communication is intended for the >> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally >> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended >> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance >> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all >> copies from your system and notify us immediately.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan >> *Sent:* Monday, 15 June 2015 11:32 PM >> *To:* Mwendwa Kivuva >> *Cc:* Client; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing >> Director >> >> >> >> PTI is supposed to be an entity controlled by ICANN; in essence, a >> subsidiary. This control is achieved by ICANN appointing 3 employees of >> ICANN or PTI. They are not supposed to be "impartial"; they are supposed to >> carry out ICANN's wishes. >> >> >> >> If there are 5 board members, more than one board member is clearly NOT a >> majority. 3 board members is a majority. >> >> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2015 10:14 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > All: >> > >> > In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" >> (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats would be >> appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN employees and one >> being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked to clarify who this >> IANA Managing Director is (since this title does not currently exist). >> >> Here is where there is a problem by having more than one ICANN employee >> as a board member at PTI. It would certainly be difficult to maintain >> impartiality on issues that would have conflict of interest, and as you can >> see, more than one board member is already a majority >> >> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** >

1 0

FW: [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Grace Abuhamad June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Forwarding to the CWG-Stewardship From: <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:18 AM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director Dear All, Below are our responses to the questions posed by Greg Shatan regarding the PTI Board. Best regards, Holly and Sharon ===================================== All: In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats would be appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN employees and one being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked to clarify who this IANA Managing Director is (since this title does not currently exist). Specifically: 1. Will the IANA Managing Director be an employee of ICANN or of PTI? [Sidley Response: It is anticipated that the IANA Managing Director (or comparable title for the person who is the most senior manager of the IANA functions) would be an employee of PTI.] 2. Is this intended to be the person in the role currently held by Elise Gerich (currently a VP of ICANN for IANA and Technical Operations)? [Sidley Response: This is intended to be the person who is the most senior manager of the IANA functions.] 3. If this person is an employee of PTI and not ICANN, does that still qualify for purposes of making it an inside board (keeping in mind that ICANN does not "own" PTI, and that the only reason this person is controlled by ICANN is because ICANN controls PTI (which creates a circularity of reasoning))? [Sidley Response: The term ³inside board² has been used to describe a board that is controlled by directors who are employed by either ICANN or PTI.] 4. Can this person be an employee of ICANN and PTI (at least so that question 3 is resolved)? [Sidley Response: The person should be an employee of PTI so as to isolate him or her from ICANN as part of the ³ring-fencing² of PTI.] Some next level questions: 5. Why are we calling this person a "Managing Director," which is not commonly used in US non-profit corporations to my experience? (The typical senior board-appointed offices are President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. Managing Director seems to show up primarily in investment banks and other financial services entities. If this person is intended to be at the helm of PTI, we should use the term President.) [Sidley Response: In relation to use of the title ³managing director,² per our notes from the high intensity call on May 29, 2015 at 3am EST, Jonathan Robinson mentioned that one of the directors would be the ³CEO of PTI,² then this person was referred to by Chuck Gomes and others as the ³managing director of IANA.² This terminology was incorporated into the meeting summary (see attached email fourth bullet under ³Current Status²) and the proposal. In any event , this person should be the most senior manager of the IANA functions. ³President² would be an appropriate title, provided there is no manager more senior than that person. Other options may be ³Chief Executive Officer² or ³Executive Director² or a combination of such titles.] 6. How will the board handle matters related to this person (compensation, etc.)? If she recuses herself, there will only be 4 directors voting. [Sidley Response: The PTI Board could delegate responsibility for determining matters relating to this person such as compensation to a committee that is comprised of a majority of directors who are not PTI employees.] I look forward to clarification and apologize if this is clear somewhere and I missed it. Greg **************************************************************************** ************************ 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. **************************************************************************** ************************

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Mwendwa Kivuva June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

On Jun 15, 2015 11:39 PM, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hey Avri, > > My preference would be that the CEO of PTI be in a non-voting seat yes The CEO should be allowed to break a tie in case of a deadlock at the board. > > Yes would like to see how other similar orgs handle these questions. > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 9:19 PM > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director > > Hi, > > A clarification, saying ex official means saying it is because of another role held. > > Do you also mean that this should be a non voting seat? > I think you do, but want to make sure. > > I would note that ICANN has a voting CEO on its Board. > Does ISOC? How about the RIRs? > Just curious. > > avri > > On 15-Jun-15 16:07, James Gannon wrote: > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > With regards to questions 3, 4 and 6: > > > > As a matter of good governance practice I would have serious concerns > > about an employee of PTI sitting on the board of PTI with the > > exception of the CEO ex officio. > > > > I would appreciate input from others but certainly in Ireland and > > France where I've sat on boards it's would not be considered an > > acceptable practice. And I agree I haven't seen this issue discussed > > and any advice on best practice given to date. > > > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > > *From:*cwg-client-bounces@icann.org > > [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2015 8:15 PM > > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Client > > *Subject:* [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director > > > > > > > > All: > > > > > > > > In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" > > (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats > > would be appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN > > employees and one being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked > > to clarify who this IANA Managing Director is (since this title does > > not currently exist). Specifically: > > > > > > > > 1. Will the IANA Managing Director be an employee of ICANN or of PTI? > > > > 2. Is this intended to be the person in the role currently held by > > Elise Gerich (currently a VP of ICANN for IANA and Technical > > Operations)? > > > > 3. If this person is an employee of PTI and not ICANN, does that > > still qualify for purposes of making it an inside board (keeping in > > mind that ICANN does not "own" PTI, and that the only reason this > > person is controlled by ICANN is because ICANN controls PTI (which > > creates a circularity of reasoning))? > > > > 4. Can this person be an employee of ICANN _and_ PTI (at least so > > that question 3 is resolved)? > > > > > > > > Some next level questions: > > > > > > > > 5. Why are we calling this person a "Managing Director," which is not > > commonly used in US non-profit corporations to my experience? (The > > typical senior board-appointed offices are President, Vice President, > > Secretary and Treasurer. Managing Director seems to show up primarily > > in investment banks and other financial services entities. If this > > person is intended to be at the helm of PTI, we should use the term > > President.) > > > > > > > > 6. How will the board handle matters related to this person > > (compensation, etc.)? If she recuses herself, there will only be 4 > > directors voting. > > > > > > > > I look forward to clarification and apologize if this is clear > > somewhere and I missed it. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > 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

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
by John Poole June 13, 2015

June 13, 2015

CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks): USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)— https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02… which states in 2.1: 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following: (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")." The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: RFC 1060 --March 1990: “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75… ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007. Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. Best regards, John Poole On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical > issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it > is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were > to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right > to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left > because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA > to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name > resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with > contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. > Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more > disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is > built into code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between > ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a > worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. > If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that > automatically springs into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > wrote: > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this > iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must > be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if > necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it > (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user > chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will > grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate > future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements > with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in > which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources > to defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both > principles... > >

12 31

Triggering of Special IFR
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR couldbe triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier

11 20

IANA Functions Usage Analysis
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, I neglected to forward you this blog post earlier, but I am sending along now since it is relevant to our discussions in the CWG. If you have any questions, I¹ve copied the author, Alain Durand, who joined ICANN a few months ago and is following the work of the CWG. Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-functions-usage-analysis IANA Functions Usage Analysis When I joined ICANN a few months ago and learned that part of my role would be supporting the IANAStewardship Transition process, I wanted to learn more about how those functions are actually operated and how much the community uses them. My background has been in the IETF for 20+ years where I chaired several working groups and authored a number of RFC¹s, so I have always known the IANAregistries as a user of the functions, however I was not very intimate with its internal operation. The IANA department performs a set of tasks that involves the coordination of many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. Notably, it maintains registries, which are most often simply text files, for three Internet communities: the Domain Names community, the Numbering Resources community (including the Regional Internet Registries or RIRs) and the Protocol Parameters community (including the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF). In total, the IANA department maintains more than 2,800 registries. I looked back at the various statistics available and compiled usage data over the last five years and I was surprised at how little I knew about the scope of the work being done there. I hope the result of this study will also be helpful to all of those in the community that are actively involved in the transition process. I. Domain Names Community Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs) Requests about ccTLDs can be classified broadly into two categories, depending on the workload they generate: ccTLD (re-)delegations and ccTLD changes such as administrative or technical contact changes and DS record updates. Generic TLDs (gTLDs) Similarly, gTLD requests can be classified broadly in two categories: gTLD (re-)delegations and gTLDchanges such as administrative or technical contact changes, and name server or DS record updates. On this graph, we clearly see the impact of the introduction of new gTLDs. II. Numbers Community IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) The numbers community requests IPv4 unicast address blocks, IPv6 unicast address blocks and blocks of Autonomous Systems Numbers (ASNs). Large IPv6 unicast address blocks were requested by the RIRs prior to 2010 and no additional requests have yet been received. IANA¹s pool of unallocated IPv4 unicast addresses was exhausted in 2011, however since that date, a few IPv4 unicast address blocks were returned to ICANN and later redistributed to the RIRs according to global policies. III. Protocol Parameters Community IETF Registries The vast majority of the registries maintained by ICANN as the IANA function operator are for protocol parameters defined and used by the IETF. Private Enterprise Numbers The most heavily used IETF protocol parameter registry is for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs). PENs are typically used in Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Information Base (MIB) configurations. To make the diagram easier to read, I¹ve separated the PEN requests from the other IETFrequests. IV. Total usage This final graph represents a picture of all the requests processed for all of the three communities Domain Names, Numbering Resources and Protocol Parameters over the last 5 years. Note, to make the graph easier to read, the cc-TLDs and gTLDs delegations/re-delegations are shown on a secondary axis, on the right hand side of the graph. As you can see from the graph with the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests related to delegations/re-delegations of TLDs has grown substantially. Requests from the Numbering Resources community have remained flat, and we are seeing an upswing in Protocol Parameter requests after a lull in mid-2012. Overall, with the exception of the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests related to the IANA functions has remained very predictable over a five-year period. Again, I hope that you found this data helpful, as I know I did, to understand the scope of the IANAfunctions. Those functions are critical to maintain the security and stability of the Internet.

1 0

Volume 6: IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, Blog is posted below: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> CWG-Stewardship Following the closure of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) general public comment period on 20 May (with comments by those relying on translations of the proposal having a closing date of 26 May), the ICANN CWG-Stewardship staff support has compiled the comments into the following key synthesis documents: * Draft compilation of major trends in the public comments received <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Draft%20compilati on%20of%20major%20trends%20in%20the%20CWGV1.2.pptx?version=1&modificationDat e=1432814833000&api=v2> (1 June) * Public Comment Review Tool Action Items <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Color%20Coded%20P ublic%20Comment%20Review%20Tool-Action%20Items-26%20May.docx?version=1&modif icationDate=1432815245000&api=v2> (26 May) – identifies which public comments relate to which Design Team's work, with proposed actions in response * CWG - Public Comment Review Tool <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Public% 20Comment%20Review%20Tool%20%C2%AD26%20May%202015.docx?version=1&modificatio nDate=1432661780000&api=v2> (26 May) The final staff report is still pending publication. The 49 submissions received before the close of the comment period on 20 May can be found here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776547> and can be downloaded as a single ZIP file <https://community.icann.org/pages/downloadallattachments.action?pageId=5377 6547> . Additional comments submitted beyond the 20 May can be found on the comments page archive <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> . The CWG-Stewardship plans to publish its final version of its draft proposal on 8 June. The CWG-Stewardship will hold two webinars <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352> to help enable the community to better understand this final draft version of the proposal * 11 June from 6:00 – 7:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150611T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 11 June from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150611T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) CCWG-Accountability The general public comment period for those responding to the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) call for public comments <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> on the initial draft report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.1 MB] of Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements has now closed. However, the comment period remains open until 12 June for those relying on the translated versions of the report's executive summary. As of 7 June, 60 comments have been submitted to the public archive of comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04 may15/> . Translations of the executive summary and full draft report can be found under Section III: Relevant Resources <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en#section3> of the call for public comments page or on the CCWG-Accountability wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report> . IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability at ICANN 53 The table below is correct as of 8 June 2015. For the most up-to-date version of which sessions will include IANA stewardship related discussions, see the full ICANN 53 schedule <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full> . DateTimeMeetingRoom 18 Jun 9:00-17:00ICG Face-to-Face Meeting San Telmo 19 Jun 8:00-18:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 Retiro A 9:00-17:00ICG Face-to-Face Meeting San Telmo 20 JunNo IANA or ICANN accountability meetings scheduled to date 21 Jun 8:30-10:00GAC: Transition of US Stewardship of IANA San Telmo 10:30-12:00GAC: Enhancing ICANN Accountability San Telmo 11:00-12:00ALAC: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Golden Horn 11:15-11:45GNSO: Update on IANA Stewardship Transition Retiro B 11:45-12:15GNSO: Update on CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Retiro B 13:30-14:30ALAC: ICANN Accountability and Transparency Golden Horn 15:00-16:00 CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the ICANN Board Retiro C 18:30-20:00 Evolving ICANN Accountability Libertador C 22 Jun 10:30-13:00 CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Town Hall Meeting Libertador AB 16:45-18:00 CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session Libertador AB 23 Jun 8:30-17:45 Joint Meetings with the Board Libertador AB 10:00-10:30SSAC: Private meeting with the CCWG co-Chairs TBC 14:00-15:45ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability La Pampa 15:00-17:00RSSAC: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability (TBC) Auditorio 16:15-20:00 At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function and Accountability Golden Horn 24 Jun 9:30-10:30GAC: IANA Stewardship Transition (cont.) San Telmo 9:30-10:45ccNSO: Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG Proposals) La Pampa 10:30-12:00 AoC and Organizational Reviews: Supporting ICANN Accountability Libertador AB 11:00-12:30GAC: Enhancing ICANN Accountability (cont.) San Telmo 13:00-15:00GNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability (TBC) Libertador C 14:00-15:00 Joint Meeting of the ASO/NRO with the ICANN Board Martin Fierro 15:30-17:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 Libertador AB 25 Jun 8:30-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Working Session La Pampa 10:15-11:45 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 La Pampa 8:30-12:30ICG Working Session 3 Libertador AB Updates on other transition-related activities Transition timeline and implementation Following a request by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ) to thechairs of the ICG <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150506/ 77c3dd16/attachment.pdf> [PDF 575 KB] and CCWG-Accountability <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00288 0.html> for information on projected dates for completing the stewardship transition, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) wrote to the three operational communities (here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000553.html> , here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000554.html> and here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000555.html> ) for more information on how long it would take to implement each of the three components of the transition proposal. The IETF Working Group on Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/documents/> ) has responded <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000607.html > , stating they believe the protocol parameters component could be implemented promptly, pending more information about the possible involvement of the protocol parameters community in the CWG-Stewardship's proposed Post-TransitionIANA (PTI). The announcement of Fadi Chehadé's departure as ICANN CEO in 2016 On 21 May, ICANN's CEO, Fadi Chehadé announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en> that he would leave his position in March 2016. Following his announcement, the NTIA released a short statement <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2015/statement-assistant-secretary-st rickling-icann-ceo-chehade> , noting, "A successful transition does not depend on the leadership of a single individual, but rather the engagement of the global multistakeholder community working collaboratively to ensure that the Internet remains open, secure, and resilient." IANA-related discussions at WSIS Forum 2015 and EuroDIG 2015 * On 28 May, the ICANN Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275> organized a session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2015, titled IANAStewardship Transition – A Live Example of a Multi-Stakeholder Process <http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269> . * On 5 June, the EuroDIG held a session, The IANA Stewardship Transition: A Test Case for Internet Governance? <http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/The_IANA_Stewardship_Transition:_A_Test_Case_fo r_Internet_Governance%3F> U.S. Government processes related to the IANA stewardship transition * On 5 June 2014, The US Government Accountability Office (GAO <http://www.gao.gov/> ) was asked by the Chairs of the U.S. Government's House Energy and Commerce Committee <http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/house-republicans-request-gao -examination-administration-proposal-regarding-future> to review the NTIA's plan to transition its oversight of the IANA functions. * In response to this, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP <https://www.nro.net/crisp-team> ) Team submitted awritten response to the GAO <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/GAO-Engagement-on-the-Internet-Domai n-Name-System-Discussion-Guide-CRISP.pdf> [PDF 60 KB] on May 12. * Also on May 12, a revised version of 2014's Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2014 (H.R. 5737 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737> ) was submitted. This year's version, Defending Internet Freedom Act (H.R. 2251 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2251/text> ), is, in contrast to the previous version of the bill, supportive of the global multistakeholder efforts to develop a transition plan for IANA's stewardship, but still would require specific conditions to be met before the NTIA could complete the transition. * On June 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2578 <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2578> ). It contains similar language to the previous Act, which prevented government funds being used by the NTIA to complete the transition of its stewardship over IANA until the end of the financial year in September. The Act next goes to the U.S. Senate for its consideration. Timeline of key events and processes related to the IANA stewardship transition 10 Jun 2015 Last day for community comments on the translated versions of ICANNaccountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). 11Jun 2015 TheCWG-Stewardship presents revised version of its proposal to their chartering members (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC) for review and adoption. 11-25 Jun 2015ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSACreview and consider adoption of CWG-Stewardship's revised proposal. 5-18 Jun 2015 TheCWG-Accountability reviews public comments on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements and prepares documents for ICANN 53 briefings with the community. 14 Jun 2015 Deadline for numbers communityto comment <https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num bering-services> on NRO's Draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services <http://www.nro.net/sla> 29 Jun 2015ICANN staff submits a report of the public comments received on CCWG-Accountability's draft report on Work Stream 1-related ICANN accountability enhancements. 21-25 Jun 2015All ICANN communities and other partiesmeet during ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> in Buenos Aires, and online via remote participation, to discuss the IANA Stewardship Transition in a number of cross-community as well as stakeholder-specific sessions. (See "IANAStewardship and ICANN Accountability discussions in Buenos Aires" table of events above). 25 Jun 2015 TheCWG-Stewardship delivers the final proposal on the naming related portion to theIANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://ianacg.org/> ). 20 Jul 2015 TheCCWG-Accountabilitypublishes second, revised, version of draft report on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements for public comment. 29 Aug 2015 Last day for community comments on the second draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). Aug-Sep 2015Community comment period on interim final proposal, consisting of names, numbers and protocol parameter components, as compiled by the ICG. 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSOreview and consider adoption of the CCWG-Accountability's revised proposal. 22 Oct 2015 TheCCWG-Accountabilitypresents Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements report to the ICANN Board. Week 3, Oct 2015 TheICGposts final combined proposal. Post-ICANN54, TBDICANN Board transmits final IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal to NTIA. Latest documents and drafts 9 June 2015 CWG-Stewardship – Final version of names proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/FinalTransitionPr oposal_v6%20-%20Redline%20-%20FINAL.docx?version=1&modificationDate=14339904 28511&api=v2> , Version 6 29 May 2015ICG – Combined IANA Stewardship proposal <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4p5yg2usat0sfmd/combined-proposal-v0.doc?dl=0> , Version 0 27 May 2015ICG – IANA Stewardship Proposal Timeline Graphic <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcqsgfyzuwhluij/TimelineGraphic-v11.xlsx?dl=0> , Version 11 ICANN – IANA Functions Usage Analysis <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-functions-usage-analysis> IANA stewardship in the news 4 Jun 2015США прибирают интернет к рукам: Конгресс США выступил против международного управления интернетом <http://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2015/06/04/6745274/americans-whant-to-take-over-i nternet.shtml> , газета.ru [RU] 1 Jun 2015IANA Transition Bill Puts Community in the Driver's Seat <http://www.bna.com/iana-transition-bill-b17179927231/> , Bloomberg BNA [EN] 25 May 2015Los riesgos de "más gobierno" en Internet <http://abcblogs.abc.es/ley-red/public/post/los-riesgos-de-mas-gobierno-en-i nternet-15924.asp/> Blogs ABC [ES] Internet-Verwaltung: "Die ICANN wurde um die IANA herum gebaut", Heise Online <http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Internet-Verwaltung-Die-ICANN-wurde-um-die-I ANA-herum-gebaut-2663254.html> [DE] Upcoming meetings and teleconferences 9 Jun 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #36 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778746> , 6:00-9:00 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #58 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 10 Jun 2015ICG Teleconference <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/> , 12:00-14:00 UTC 11 Jun 2015Webinar: briefing on final CWG-Stewardship proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352> , 6:00-07:30 UTC & 13:00- 14:30 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #59 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-12:00 UTC 18-25 Jun 2015ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , including pre-meetings, Buenos Aires 17-18 Jul 2015 CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting, Paris, France 18-19 Sep 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, TBC You can play a role in ICANN's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of the IANA function's stewardship and ICANNaccountability. For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org.For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact acct-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 11 June 2015

1 0

Public Comment Review Tool
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, Attached is the updated Public Comment Review Tool. I have included a redline and a clean version. The document is now 300-pages, so quite lengthy to review. In the interest of time, to make sure those who submitted comments can see how the CWG addressed their submissions, we will post this Review Tool to the Wiki and Public Comment page. Should there be a need for further updates, we can update the documents as requested. The Wiki page is here: https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw. Best, Grace

3 2

CONGRATS! Proposal Submitted to Chartering Orgs!
by Grace Abuhamad June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear all, Below is the message sent to Chartering Organizations to submit the proposal. For the CWG, I¹ve attached the redline version as well, so that you can track all the changes made. Congratulations to all! From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Subject: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC Dear SO and AC Chairs, CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA Stewardship Transition The Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its proposed response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition for your consideration and approval as per its Charter. The response is the result of extensive work by the CWG¹s 19 members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors over the past year, which included over 100 calls or meetings, 2 public consultations and more than 4,000 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration. As noted in the CWG-Stewardship proposal itself, the proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this proposal will require revision. We also note that there are certain implementation elements that will require further dialogue in the near future, including with the other operational communities, and these have been marked as such in the final proposal. Two specific issues are particularly important to highlight. One is the finalization of the service level expectations (SLEs), where the proposal includes a set of agreed principles between the CWG and IANA, but these remain to be finalized in the form of a mutually agreed set of SLEs. A detailed plan for this finalisation is being worked on and it is our view that this detail, whilst vitally important, does not impact on the substance of the proposal put to you for approval. The second issue entails the location of intellectual property rights and this needs further discussion with the other respondents to the ICG RFP and ICANN. As per the CWG-Stewardship¹s Charter we now seek your approval to submit this final proposal to the ICG and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 25 June 2015 to meet the overall timing requirements which would allow the transition to proceed, noting that final approval is conditional on the approval of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations. We will make ourselves, together with or other key contributors, available to you at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw <https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw> . Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #59 9 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 59 on 11 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778034 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items none Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Final proposal to be distributed to chartering organizations later today * No objections or minority statements received * Need to start looking ahead to the ICANN meeting in BA in order to secure the support of the chartering organizations * Need support from the members and participants in doing so. All to serve as ambassadors for the proposal and assist in securing support. 2. Transfer of Final Proposal * CWG-Co-Chairs to transfer proposal to chartering organizations today together with a coverning note which will also highlight work remaining such as SLEs (staff to project manage together with DTA members, also ensure NTIA approval for such work as well as secure possible budget needed). * Consider renaming DTA to SLE ad-hoc working group with possible additions to original membership of DTA which includes 3 ccTLD and 3 gTLD registry reps (see also proposed work plan circulated by Paul Kane to CWG mailing list). A URL link will be created so that work in progress can be followed by anyone interested. Do GNSO and ccNSO need to give formal approval? Yes, it may be helpful to get ccNSO/GNSO support for continuing with this work - can be done as part of the hand-over of the final proposal. * IPR issue will also be flagged in the cover letter and discussed with the client committee. Will require further co-ordination with ICG and other operational communities. 3. Communication Points * Two webinars taking place today (one this morning, one later this afternoon). Over 60 participants attended the first webinar - several questions regarding process following adoption by chartering organizations. * Slide deck will be made available to all, in pdf and ppt format, the latter allowing for customization as needed. * Linkage with CCWG needs to be well understood. Chairs of both groups working on a blog that will highlight linkage and co-operation between the two groups as well as the conditionality 4. ICANN 53 -- Buenos Aires * See ICANN 53 relevant meetings schedule on the wiki ( <https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw) * Important to take people along on the journey that has occurred, but also explaining substance and linkage with CCWG. * Clarify that both ccNSO and GNSO need to approve initiation of IFR (ensure that there is no misunderstanding). For example, 'Both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority)'. * Also clarify that CSC escalates to ccNSO and GNSO, does not initiate an IFR on its own. * CCWG will take lead on town hall meeting, with contribution from CWG-Stewardship. 5. Beyond ICANN 53 * Provided no objections are made / approvals received in BA, transmittal to the ICG would be the next step. * How to follow up on work of SlEs as well as implementation related issues? Charter foresees that 'the CWG will consult with the ICG representatives to determine when it can consider its work completed'. * Advisable to have process in place if questions come back from chartering organizations / ICG. * Need to revisit mandate for Sidley, in consultation with ICANN to determine what role, if any it would play following submission of final proposal to chartering organizations, in relation to implementation.

1 0