June 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

CWG Wiki webpage for ICANN 53 Buenos Aires
by Brenda Brewer June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Dear CWG, A wiki page has been created with ICANN 53 Buenos Aires information specifically of interest to the CWG. Updates will be made as they become available. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778448> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778448 Also, calendar invites will soon be sent for remote participation at the ICANN 53 meetings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Update on the last items from the call 4th June
by Lise Fuhr June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Hi All, I realise that I never sent this to you - just made it ready for sending - better late than never.. As promised at the last CWG call, we send you a written update on the item 5-7 on the agenda. 5. CCWG-Accountability a. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal As instructed by the Client Committee Wednesday 3rd June, Sidley has phrased the conditionality so that if the requirement are not met then the proposal will require revision. Jonathan sent Sidley's rider and their comments to the CWG proposal to the CWG group Thursday 4th of June. Please read it and we will discuss it during the next call Tuesday 9th of June. b. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment closed yesterday The CWG chairs have sent comments to the CCWG draft proposal to the chairs of the CCWG and submitted it. Jonathan sent a copy of the comments to the CWG group on Wednesday 3rd June. 6. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications and c. Sessions at ICANN 53 Regarding the communication it is important that participants and members help educating and informing the community regarding the proposal - you are ambassadors for our work. We have all made great efforts and sacrifices in order to build a solid well-considered piece of work that of course and necessarily contain compromises. Now we need to you all to inform and educate the different groups to aide in consideration for approval and support in BA. b. Webinars on 11 June There will be two webinars on Thursday 11th of June. The CWG-chair will run the webinars - one during the morning and one early afternoon. The webinars will be based on a slide-deck, that we will send to the CWG group to use for educating their respective SO or AC and once more we encourage you all to use the slides. We will have help from Xplane in doing the graphics to have a comprehensive and explanatory set of slides. We have decides to offer live interpretation, but participants need to sign up for interpretation before the webinar. 7. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley Wednesday 3rd June the Client Committee sent instructions to Sidley regarding: 1. The CWG's requirements in order to finish the proposal 2. The CWG's requirements to support the proposal in B.A. 3. The CWG's potential requirements post B.A. and/or with implementation The following need to be secured by Sidley in advance of concluding the final proposal for send-off next week. A. A form of language which effectively captures the conditional nature of the proposal i.e. that the proposal is valid if and only if adequate accountability mechanisms are in place. These mechanisms are currently contemplated by the CWG in conjunction with the CCWG B. A confirmation around the use (or not) of the ICANN bylaws as described in the CWG proposal in order to capture the necessary components of the CWG proposal that need to be enshrined in the ICANN bylaws. C. A confirmation that the final proposal is consistent with Sidley's advice given to date and, to the extent that it is not, what changes are required. The CWG chairs find that the response from Sidley from 4th June includes all these issues. As mentioned earlier this is to be discussed during the third reading of the proposal on Tuesday 9th June. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

1 0

Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
by Gomes, Chuck June 6, 2015

June 6, 2015

Here is DT-M’s final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO’s suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: “DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so.” If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

10 25

Escalation Process
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 5, 2015

June 5, 2015

Hello all, I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process. In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation. As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes. As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it. I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment. I look forward to your responses. Kindest regards, Olivier

5 7

Updates to circulate (including WEBINAR)
by Grace Abuhamad June 5, 2015

June 5, 2015

Dear all, Our Webinar announcement is published (and edited per the meeting yesterday) here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. * IMPORTANT: Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Russian. Interpretation services will be provided by advance request only, so please be sure to request language services when submitting an RSVP. Language requests must be received by 9 June in order to adequately resource the webinars. Also, attached is an updated participation stats graphic for the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability discussions through the end of May. Finally, ICANN has launched the new stewardship-accountability page on icann.org! (https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability) There is now a drop down menu from the main website that links directly to the ICG microsite and CCWG-Accountability wiki pages. On the main stewardship-accountability page you will be able to find links to every working group webpage as well. Best, Grace

1 0

Comment from co-chairs of the cross community working group on IANA Stewardship (CWG-Stewardship)
by Jonathan Robinson June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

As submitted to the current public comment forum for the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) regarding input needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1). Jonathan & Lise

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool
by Alan Greenberg June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only person regularly contributing that may have some insight. I don't know to what extent he pays attention to every CWG e-mail! My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, but also that it could vary heavily from year to year. It would be correct that this work is not done entirely within IANA, but I am quite sure that some will be and at times there will need to be budgets for consulting, external contract work and such. I find it fascinating that we are spending our time on conjecture when we could simply ask the people involved. Alan At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >I think Item 3 needs to be clarified: > >3Â· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) DT O / DDT F > >DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship >recommends that there needs to be flexibility to >allow for spending related to R&D for other >special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would >need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as >also recommended by DT F). These would be >included in the draft budget which is expected >to be presented 9 months in advance as part of >the presentation of the proposed budget. > >Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can >provide information on how much "R&D" or >innovation development goes on within the IANA >Functions group (which I envision as Elise >Gerich and her reports), and how much of that >goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN >(e.g., IETF). Perhaps this could be answered >with regard to the examples given (DNSSEC and >IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group >was consulted at points in development and >particularly with regard to deployment, but it >was not my impression that these were >"researched and developed" within the IANA team. > >Unless there are good reasons to change, we >should follow and fund the current model for >division of labor on development/innovation vs. >implementation. It would help to clarify this, >and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to >avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. > >Greg > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad ><<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: >Dear all, >Here below are the DT-O responses and >recommendations for the Public Comment Review Tool > >1Â· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards >to budget development (InternetNZ) DT O > >DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to >ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would >approve it at least 3 months in advance of the >fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. > > > >2Â· CWG will need to develop a proposed process >for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) DT O > >DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with >the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs >for the first year's budget and notes that a >process should be developed possibly as part of >the implementation of the proposal. > > > >3Â· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) â DT O / DT F > >DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship >recommends that there needs to be flexibility to >allow for spending related to R&D for other >special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would >need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as >also recommended by DT F). These would be >included in the draft budget which is expected >to be presented 9 months in advance as part of >the presentation of the proposed budget. > > > >4Â· PTI should be adequately funded and need to >ensure that expenditures are appropriate should be clarified ((IPC) CWG > >DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to >previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 >months in advance, and that ICANN would approve >it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal >year). 1 year of operating expenses updated on >annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an >additional year kept open to low-risk >investments. Both years of funds would be for >use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for >some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness >of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability process. > > > >5Â· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with >concerns about how IANA expenses would be >covered following a separation process. DT-N >supports this recommendation. We look to the >full CWG for a determination on where this issue >is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). > >DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not >required at the point of transition, but this >information could be requested to be developed >within the first year of implementation. In >first year, increase by 10% each of the >following until such estimates can be provided: > > - 1 year of operating expenses updated > on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and > > - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. > > > >Best, >Grace > >From: <Gomes>, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM >To: "DT-O Mailing List >(<mailto:dto@icann.org>dto(a)icann.org)" <<mailto:dto@icann.org>dto(a)icann.org> >Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary > >Here are the action items from this summary that >relate to DT-O that I think require more >discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. > > > >Chuck > > > >Â· Consider InternetNZ experience with >regards to budget development (InternetNZ) DT O > >CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided >and suggests that those steps be customized for >how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a >best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had >recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here. > >Â· CWG will need to develop a proposed >process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) DT O > >CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the >CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a >process should be developed possibly as part of >the implementation of the proposal. The CWG >should consider whether there are any elements >that should be developed as part of the final proposal. > >Â· Need for a budget to support R&D >should be included (ALAC) DT O / DT F > >CWG response: The CWG recommends that there >needs to be flexibility to allow for spending >related to R&D which would need to be covered as >part of PTI operations (as also recommended by >DT F). It is the expectation that these would be >included in the draft budget which is expected >to be presented 9 months in advance as part of >the presentation of the proposed budget. > >Â· PTI should be adequately funded and >need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate > should be clarified (IPC) CWG > >CWG response: See previous response concerning >adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI >and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, >but no additional say for the community unless >there are indications that there is not >sufficient funding or âgold platingâ, noting >that there are also other mechanisms available >to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms. > >Â· Separation Costs: > >Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA >expenses would be covered following a separation >process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We >look to the full CWG for a determination on >where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). > >CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG >notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient >portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA >services. The CWG also recognizes that there >would be transition costs and ongoing operation >costs related to the possible selection of a new >operator, which are expected to be covered by >ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. > > > > > > > >From:<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Marika Konings >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM >To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary > > > >Dear all, > > > >Please find attached the updated summary of >public comment action items as updated with the >CWG responses as discussed during the calls over >the last two days. Staff will be incorporating >these responses in the public comment review >tool (complete version). Design Teams are >requested to provide any additional responses >that need to be included in the public comment >review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Marika > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

6 21

FW: [client com] CWG Proposal - Sidley Comments
by Jonathan Robinson June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

All. FYI. Please see attached from Sidley on review by them of the draft final proposal and in response to the CWG’s instructions managed by the CWG Client Committee. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 04 June 2015 06:16 To: Client Committee; (cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org) Subject: [client com] CWG Proposal - Sidley Comments Dear All, Attached are Sidley’s comments on the revised CWG proposal. Our comments are reflected in tracked changes to the marked version circulated on June 3 (word document titled Final Transition Proposal). We have also attached a redline showing only our incremental changed pages (pdf document titled Sidley Comments…). In addition, attached is a draft of language expressing the conditionality of the CWG proposal on the requisite CCWG accountability mechanisms. This is marked against current paragraph 105 in the CWG proposal. SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan(a)sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #57 4 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 57 on 4 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777828 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Staff will send a stable document version by end of day Thursday. Action (Grace): edit Webinar announcement to make clear that, at the time of the webinars, we will have provided the final version Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Majority of meeting will be focused on item 4 (recent edits, changes, etc) * Be sure that the essence is captured (staff can assist with wording) 2. Update on Public Comments * Mechanics & process: broke down by sections of the document. * Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses: basing the document as of June 1st before the first draft final version was sent out. * Lengthy 250-page document, but we will make sure everyone will have time to review 4. 2nd Reading of Final Proposal * This version includes Avri, Greg and most of Sidley * Edit footnote 3 (related to paragraph 105): The CSC is not a legal entity. (second sentence: switch "or" to "and") * In IFR section (and Annex F), "Periodic reviews should occur at no more than five-year intervals." * If a Special review occurs within a short period, allow for some flexibility * Para 123: needs to be internally consistent and checked for relevant position in the document (ref: that CSC is further defined later in document, for example) * Question of escalation to GNSO * SLEs will be updated and submitted along with proposal( but perhaps not as extensive as was presented in Istanbul) * Paragraph 141: "or equivalent community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process" (possible to bracket/footnote different points in the text) * Paragraph 167: staff assets and coherence of PTI is important, but not sure that the last sentence adds clarity yet. * Paragraph 170: Not accurate that CSC is multistakeholder (remove the word and use 'customer-based instead) * Add footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is currently in Annex to section II, so duplication here would be helpful) * Paragraph 275: composition of IFRT does not have extra RySG member (only the SCWG does) * Annex S: Term sheet would be the subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent advice). This term sheet is an example/draft and precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. ---> use the word "sample" instead of "draft" Further reading of the document on Tuesday but there is a deadline cut-off on Sunday 7 June for comments/edits. Action: Staff will send a stable document version by end of day Thursday. Action (Grace): edit Webinar announcement to make clear that, at the time of the webinars, we will have provided the final version

1 0

For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2
by Marika Konings June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached version 2 of the proposal for your review which includes amongst others: * Jonathan¹s edits * Paragraph 102 CWG edits * Paragraph 106 Martin addition * Paragraph 111 Martin addition * Paragraph 150 CWG edits * Paragraph 226 (Annex F) Martin addition * Paragraph 233 table Martin addition * Updated Section VI * Updates from DT F concerning root zone maintainer and root zone environment * Suggested changes to address Andrew¹s comments in paragraph 96 and 107 * Updates to Annex F * Updates to Annex J per DT M¹s feedback Please note that there are still some outstanding items that we expect to update as soon as input is received, for example from DT C concerning the CSC Charter, paragraph 123 (note action item for Avri), outstanding issue in Annex J under discussion by DT M and C, DT A input concerning Annex H, but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to review these latests updates. Furthermore, we will continue working on proofreading and formatting of the document and annexes. Please share any comments and/or edits you have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika

6 10