June 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Revised DT-F section.
by Alan Greenberg June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Attached please find the revised section III.A.iii of the CWG Proposal. Note that sub-heading number III.A.iii.a is not required, since there is no III.AAA.iii.b. This revision incorporates everything that was in the former Annex N, and that Annex is no longer required. Alan

1 0

Notes and Recordings DT-M | 2 June
by Brenda Brewer June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, transcript and recordings for the CWG IANA DT-M Meeting on 2 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241%20> Kind regards, Brenda Notes Footnote 36 - consider timing of this work. DT to review section 4 (implementation considerations) to determine whether any updates could/should be made there to reflect work that is needed in relation to mediation options. DT M / DT C to co-ordinate where input regarding punch list items #21 - 23 - where will the agreed approach be incorporated? ccNSO & GNSO to undertake further work on this issue - might be another implementation item to be included in section 4. DT M to consider whether esclation in problem management in step 4 should be to ccNSO/GNSO or ccNSO/RySG. Escalation to PTI Board can be a useful step as it could result in correction of issue, even if changes are small that PTI Board is able to correct the issue if it has not been addressed before by PTI staff. If issue is not addressed by PTI Board, issue would be escalated to ccNSO/GNSO. Should PTI Board be able to ask for review by SIFR? PTI Board could request SIFR and submit this request to the ICANN Board. ICANN Board with community input could then make a decision on whether or not an SIFR is initiated. PTI Board should not be making such a request to the CSC. DT N/SR/X to consider this update as part of the separation process annex. DT M also consider making reference to this in the section (for example as a footnote) on escalation mechanisms, following CWG agreement on including this. DTM proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organization organization are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholder into separate SGs and Constituencies. In the ccNSO the is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity. In response to ALAC comment: DT M understands concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. DT M also notes that GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation the policis made, and can raise alarms and request a SIFR; 2. GNSO is about more than policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #56 2 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 56 on 2 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777826 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Avri to provide clarification text Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53. Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work Notes Draft Final Proposal available on Wiki here: <https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg> https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. 1. Opening Remarks * first version of final proposal is out. * opportunity to wrap up * proposing to do a "page turn" to read through any areas and provide comments 2. Recap of the High Intensity Meetings * Solid sessions that tackles scope of PTI Board, composition, IFR, etc. * Made a lot of progress -- very encouraging 3. Update on Public Comments * Mechanics & process: 55 submissions total; DTs are working on their action items and the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting * Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole): two responsibilities: responding to actions and reviewing responses provided in Review Tool * Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses: the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting 4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal * Follow up call with Xavier from ICANN Finance and expect to receive responses today * Have yet to hear anything from ICANN Legal but this has been escalated with Theresa Swinehart 5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal Focus on updates to Sections III, IV, V Paragraph 98: Iron-out issues regarding transferring IANA to PTI (have been limited to IANA naming functions but this creates awkwardness) Paragraph 102: * take out "provisional" * add additional "independent" directors * add sentence: "CWG-Stewardship requires that the independent PTI Board members be selected through an appropriately rigorous selection method for which the NomCom is qualified" Note from Sidley: ICANN Board Directors are not considered "insiders". The idea is to be independent of ICANN management. Paragraph 106: Martin put a proposal for wording on the CWG-Stewardship list: add to the end: "However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not part of the IANA functions operation contract. In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN." Paragraph 111: Martin suggested an edit for this paragraph Paragraph 113: Chuck made comments. Provide clarity about RFP Action: Avri to provide clarification text For Changes to Root Zone Management... --> DT-F will provide a new version shortly that will cover both main text and Annex Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized Paragraph 150 change 3 months to "9 months" No objection to "ring-fenced" funds Annex F: update membership (note an extra person in RySG where not supposed to be) 6. CCWG-Accountability * Coordination update: CCWG chairs will attend webinars; close communication and coordination for upcoming ICANN 53 meeting * Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal: important aspect of the proposal with Sidley's help * CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June: chairs will provide response to CCWG public comment (since CCWG chairs provided comments in CWG PC) 7. Overall Timeline / Milestones * Communications: big responsibility on SO/AC appointed members * Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?): proposed at 6:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC * Sessions at ICANN 53: Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53. 8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work 9. AOB 10. Closing Remarks You'll see a new draft of the document very shortly!

1 0

v1 Final Proposal
by Grace Abuhamad June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it¹s not as final¹ as I had intended to send you. Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting Final stretch! Grace

6 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
by Alan Greenberg June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Check, are you worried about registry fees going up: * Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future? If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today? If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher. I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible. So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against? Alan At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as >part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after >transition will be much higher. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... > >Hi, > >On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put > that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose > addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry > fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and > ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are > presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees? > >As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process? > >Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with >issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like >a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do >not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition >process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN >will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and >beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between >parent and ward. > >The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN >budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do >not need to lumped in with the transition itself. > > >avri > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >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

6 6

Information about consultations that has taken place within GAC in relation to CWG
by Lindeberg, Elise June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear Grace and Bart - I suddenly realized that I was to report consultations that has taken place within GAC in relation to the CWG work and public hearing on the second draft proposal - I assume you will put this information into the final CWG proposal. · GAC members and participants in the CWG and the GAC secretariat have been using GAC mailing list to point attention to specific items and discussions in the CWG, asking for GAC members comments and questions in the ongoing process. The GAC secretariat has also established a CWG/CCWG whiteboard on GAC website - for updates and exchange on both CWG and CCWG draft proposals. The GAC secretariat have been following the CWG process closely, using the whiteboard to give summary of CWG/CCWG discussions, updated timeline on CWG and CCWG draft proposals and processes, information about Webinars, summary of public comments from other Governments/GAC members and information about internal GAC procedures and range of possible options for taking a position as a Chartering Organisation of CWG. Information on the whiteboard is functioning as a coordination tool between CWG stewardship and CCWG Accountability. · GAC CWG members and participants and the GAC secretariat has provided analysis of how GAC input is reflected in the CWG proposal, including how the sets of principles agreed by the GAC in desember 2014 have been reflected in the CWG. * GAC has held briefing sessions between GAC leaders team and CWG members for update on CWG process and timeline before the public comment period for the CWG draft proposal in April. * On the 22nd of April, the GAC Chair Thomas Schneider wrote a letter to all GAC members to remind members about the CWG and CCWG timeline and public comment period and to inform how the GAC can contribute to the CWG and CCWG process before, during and after Boenos Aires meeting. · GAC members and participants in the CWG, together with the GAC secretariat, gave a summary of the CWG draft proposal before GAC wide calls. · The GAC has held GAC-wide calls on the 5th and 6th of May to enable individual GAC members to discuss and develop their views on the CWG draft proposal and share their views across the GAC. Discussions on these wide-calls identified issues of special interest to the GAC in both the CWG and CCWG draft proposals. · Sufficient time has been allocated for GAC discussions on CWG final proposal and CCWG draft proposal during the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947

1 0

Agenda for 2 June call (meeting #56)
by Grace Abuhamad June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Hi all, Here is the proposed agenda for meeting #56. We are incorporating edits to the Final Proposal and will circulate so that you have time to review the document in advance of the call tomorrow (we are aiming to send by 22:00 UTC at the latest). Agenda for Meeting #56 on 2 June: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Recap of the High Instensity Meetings 3. Update on Public Comments a. Mechanics & process b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole) c. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses 4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal 6. CCWG-Accountability a. Coordination update b. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal c. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June 7. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?) c. Sessions at ICANN 53 8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley 9. AOB 10. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
by Duchesneau, Stephanie June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. 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). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

11 25