August 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry (and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But carried to an extreme. It allows the transition to occur with no code changes and virtually no changes in procedure other than those which will be well tested prior to the transition. I think that the temporary cloning of the entire RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making coding or operational changes at the moment of transition, but it *IS* following the sound engineering practice of minimizing concurrent changes, and specifically ones that cannot be fully tested prior to the moment of transition. If it had been me, I would have developed the revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT.... As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing to do with the relationship of the NTIA and Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement). Alan At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hi, > >Just to mention that Milton wrote an interesting >blog post summary about this proposal: > ><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic…>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic… > >Inline with determining consistency with what >DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the >question of whether the proposal shared by Larry >will ultimately remove the administrative role >NTIA. The current wording in the proposal does >not make that clear and I think that would >indeed determine if we are really done with >stewardship transition or just scratching the surface. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hello, > >Larry has just posted an update on the IANA >transition and extension of ICANN contract. An >item of the update is the proposal that >addresses the administrative(middleman) role of >NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG >did not address this in its proposal due to >scope, it highlights some high level principles >(expectations) on this. It may be good to check >if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. > >Regards > > ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition > > >An Update on the IANA Transition > > >August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for >Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling > >The Internetâs global multistakeholder >community has made tremendous progress in its >work to develop a proposal to transition the >historic stewardship role NTIA has played >related to Internetâs domain name system (DNS). > >When we ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>announced >our intent in March 2014 to complete the >privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base >period of our contract with ICANN to perform >technical functions related to the DNS, known as >the IANA functions, expired on September 30, >2015. However, it has become increasingly >apparent over the last few months that the >community needs time to complete its work, have >the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and >then implement it if it is approved. > >Accordingly, in May we asked the groups >developing the transition documents how long it >would take to finish and implement their >proposals. After factoring in time for public >comment, U.S. Government evaluation and >implementation of the proposals, the community >estimated it could take until at least September >2016 to complete this process. In response to >their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday >that we plan to extend our IANA contract with >ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond >2016, we have options to extend the contract for >up to three additional years if needed. > >This one-year extension will provide the >community with the time it needs to finish its >work. The groups are already far along in >planning the IANA transition and are currently >taking comments on their IANA transition >proposals. As we indicated in a recent ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_…>Federal >Register notice, we encourage all interested >stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. > >In preparation for the implementation phase of >the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked >Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >detailing how best to remove NTIAâs >administrative role associated with root zone >management, which the groups working on the >transition were not asked to address. We asked >Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >detailing how best to do this in a manner that >maintains the security, stability and resiliency >of the DNS. Under the current root zone >management system, Verisign edits and >distributes the root zone file after it has >received authorization to do so from NTIA. >Verisign and ICANN have developed a ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…>proposal >that outlines a technical plan and testing >regime for phasing out the largely clerical role >NTIA currently plays in this process. The >testing will occur in a parallel environment >that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. > >These developments will help ensure that the >IANA transition will be done in a manner that >preserves the security and stability of the DNS. > >Cheers! >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

Hello, Larry has just posted an update on the IANA transition and extension of ICANN contract. An item of the update is the proposal that addresses the administrative(middleman) role of NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG did not address this in its proposal due to scope, it highlights some high level principles (expectations) on this. It may be good to check if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. Regards http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition An Update on the IANA Transition August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling The Internet’s global multistakeholder community has made tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name system (DNS). When we announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> our intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired on September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is approved. Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_…>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone management system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it has received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have developed a proposal <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…> that outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the largely clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will occur in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be done in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

3 3

CCWG - Latest Version of PC2 Tool
by Bernard Turcotte Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

All, Latest, Aug. 21, version of the PC2 tool for public comments attached. this includes the comments from: - the Heritage Foundation - the ICANN Board Given the tool does not provide a view of complete responses and how they were analyzed I have included two additional files one for each of the Heritage Foundation and the ICANN Board submissions where I have amalgamated the relative comments from the PC2 tool at the end these original submissions - let me know if you find this useful. Also please note the following from the ICANN Board submission regarding their original list of questions to the CCWG: - While the detailed review work is still forthcoming, a preliminary review of the Proposal indicates that there are still some areas where key details will need to be finalized before the transition of the stewardship from NTIA can occur. Below are some examples of areas that need to be finalized or improved. Our fiduciary duty as Board members requires us to understand the operational impacts of the recommendations that the community will be asking the Board to accept in the near future, so the Board will work to identify the open areas that need to be finalized. *The earlier questions provided by the Board to the CCWG were an attempt to point out areas where additional information or considerations would be helpful in supporting the proposal. While the shift to the sole member model has removed some of the questions about individual parts of the ICANN community being able to exercise statutory powers, the Board’s intent was and continues to be that the questions serve as guidance to the CCWG in considering whether sufficient detail is in place within the proposal.* *Cheers* *B.*

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #63 -- 20 August 2015
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 63 on 20 August 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xoNCAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Need a position on IANA IPR before the close of the ICG Public Comment * Need to ensure that the CCWG-Acct proposal is in line with the CWG requirements. Part of this involves the Bylaws matrix that Sidley has prepared. * The SLE/SLAs for the names community also need to be finalized. 2. IANA IPR Discussion * In BA, there was some concern over the draft text in the CWG proposal -- the text appeared to be in conflict with the other communities. We issued a statement to clarify that the text was draft only. We intended to deal with IPR further in implementation. * Received a memo on IPR issues from Sidley on 4 August. * Jonathan and Lise held coordination call with the Chairs of the other communities. These were productive and helpful. * ICANN Board issued a statement on Saturday 15 August. * On Monday, Chairs held another coordination call and followed up with a note to the CWG-Stewardship * ICG Chairs and CRISP Chairs have responded positively on the mailing list and clarified questions/issues where needed. * Agreement on a neutral/independent trust and the communities can focus on requirements for this trust during implementation. * Olivier Crepin Leblond clarified that the At-Large Working Group on IANA Transition is in agreement with the concept of the independent trust (although they would have preferred that ICANN continue to hold these marks). * Greg Shatan agrees with proposed position * Next step: communicate this position to the ICG through the Public Comment and to the other communities involved. * Martin Boyle noted that the IFO will need to have operational control of the IANA.ORG and associated domain names. This is a requirement that needs to be clarified in the agreement. Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. In future (likely after submission of ICG Proposal to NTIA): * CWG to focus on clarifying requirements/criteria for the independent/neutral trust * Work with other communities during implementation to make sure requirements/criteria are met. 3. Bylaws Matrix Sidley produced a Bylaws Matrix on 11 August. Drafted from the CWG perspective (even though counsel is also working with the CCWG) PTI Governance Do we need all governance aspects to be fundamental bylaws? These are important bylaws but it is possible that not all need to be fundamental. If there were even a need to change the membership of PTI, this could be a decision not just by ICANN but also by the Community Mechanism. Sharon notes that, for drafting purposes, the decision of whether bylaws are standard or fundamental is not necessary. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget The CWG had "approve or veto" but the CCWG has agreed to a veto process. The CWG needs to confirm that this veto is workable. Lise confirmed that based on the mailing list discussions, the CWG has confirmed that the veto power is workable. Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal IANA Functions Contract No questions or comments. Community Empowerment Mechanisms The CCWG's current proposal is consistent with CWG requirements Customer Standing Committee (CSC) No questions or comments IANA Problem Resolution Process No questions or comments IANA Function Review (IFR) No questions or comments Separation Process No questions or comments Appeals Mechanism Question from Allan MacGillivray: We clearly state in the CWG proposal (see page 21 under 'Appeal Mechanism' that the 'direct customers of IANA need to have access to an Independent Review Panel'. My reading of the of the CCWG proposal (see page 39 for example) is that the proposed 'independent review process' will apply only in respect of ICANN board and staff decisions. If correct, how do we ensure that PTI decisions are also reviewable. Does this need to be built into PTI's bylaws? Can a registry use the appeals mechanism to resolve an issue? Yes, The CWG report cleary indicates that individual problems and issues be reviewable. The CWG report says this: "Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions (emphasis added). For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition." The ccTLDs (and the CWG report) have made clear that the IRP process not apply to delegation/redelegation issues. However, the CCWG proposal currently also applies that exemption to the Reconsideration process as well. Do the CWG and ccTLDs want delegation and redelegation issues to be included in the Reconsideration process or not? Josh Hofheimer (Sidley) suggests that this can be resolved through detailed drafting in implementation in PTI [Root Zone Management] No questions or comments Fundamental Bylaws No questions or comments Coordination with CCWG-Accountability Can the Client Committee proceed to instruct the legal counsel to move forward with Bylaws drafting? --> No objection Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct 4. SLEWG Update * The SLEWG created a drafting subgroup on 21 May. This group consisted of Kim Davies (ICANN-IANA) and Adam Smith (Specialist on SLAs from CDNS). Bernie Turcotte provided facilitation and staff support. * There have been over 20 revisions and drafts. * The SLEWG held two calls this week to agree of outstanding issues (queue-jumping and non-discriminatory practice) and finalize the draft. * There will be another call next week to review the draft before submission to the CWG. * After CWG agreements, the document will go back to the IANA department for budget and implementation plan (with a time period for testing). This will allow for proven and tested SLEs to be implemented as part of the transition. 5. AOB Sidley to help with CWG submission to the CCWG Public Comment.

1 0

Further update on the IANA IPR
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

All, The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now. Essentially: 1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period. Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)? >From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator. Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose. We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise

9 10

An Update on NTIA's Announcement to Extend IANA Functions Contract
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-ntia-s-announcement-to-extend-i ana-functions-contract ICANN's Theresa Swinehart discusses NTIA¹s announcement of the IANA functions contract extension. The additional time is necessary for the global community to complete its work and for ICANN to implement the community¹s proposals. Watch the full video here: https://youtu.be/QiBy0wiiiYQ

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Dear Kavouss, We will be reaching out to CWG Co-Chairs to coordinate and propose adjustments flagged by our group. As soon as a final version becomes available, we will be glad to share it with all. Best regards, León > El 19/08/2015, a las 7:16, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > Dear Leon > Further to the yesterday's call ,pls send the finalized doc. if possible > Kavouss > > 2015-08-19 11:42 GMT+02:00 Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net <mailto:athina.fragkouli@ripe.net>>: > Dear Leon, all, > > Thank you for sharing the matrix with us. > > I understand that this addresses merely CWG issues and that it is only a > description of what the provisions will contain. However, as it also > touches upon CCWG accountability topics, we would like to flag a couple > of issues so that they are properly addressed in the actual bylaws text. > > In particular: > > - Section 7 - IANA Function Review. > It should be clear that this section refers to the IANA naming function > only. > > - Section 9 - Appeal Mechanism > As there is an exception for the ccTLDs, there should also be > such an exception for the numbers related disputes. > > Thank you very much. > > Athina > on behalf of the ASO reps > > > On 18/08/15 21:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > As spotted by some, there are some inaccuracies in the matrix that need > > to be taken care of. > > > > I will make sure to pass your comments to the CWG Co-Chairs so that they > > can review them with counsel and make the corresponding corrections to > > the document. > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > León > > > >> El 14/08/2015, a las 0:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > >> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> escribió: > >> > >> Dear All, > >> It is simple ,please replace the word" approve by " Reject " . > >> Tks > >> Kavouss > >> > >> 2015-08-13 11:27 GMT+02:00 <Sabine.Meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de> > >> <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de>>>: > >> > >> Dear Julie, Martin, Greg, León,____ > >> > >> Dear all, ____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> I have a further question about the matrix kindly shared by León, > >> regarding its section on PTI Governance, specifically Section 1 > >> subsection (a) (ii), i.e. “ jurisdiction of incorporation (i.e., > >> to change from California to another jurisdiction)“.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Have the deliberations of the CCWG whether or not a bylaw > >> requirement regarding location of headquarters should be a > >> Fundamental Bylaw (para 241 – 255 of the draft report) been taken > >> into account by the CWG? As I understand, the matrix refers to > >> changes in the ICANN bylaws so I was wondering whether it is fully > >> consistent with the CCWG proposal in this regard.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Best regards____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Sabine Meyer____ > >> > >> International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance____ > >> > >> Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy ____ > >> > >> Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn____ > >> > >> GERMANY____ > >> > >> Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948> <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948>____ > >> > >> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964> <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964>____ > >> > >> E-Mail: sabine.meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de> > >> <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de>>____ > >> > >> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/> <http://www.bmwi.de/ <http://www.bmwi.de/>>____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> *Von:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> > >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>>] *Im Auftrag von > >> *Martin Boyle > >> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 19:09 > >> *An:* Greg Shatan; Julie Hammer > >> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community > >> *Betreff:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Not sure why, but I did not see Julie’s original mail.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> I agree with her point. There are also other parts of this > >> section of the matrix that raise questions for me:____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ i. __For all of “2. *ICANN Budget and IANA > >> Budget*” I think CWG should be consulted where it comes to the > >> IANA budget.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ ii. __(a) This is definitely something that > >> needs to be considered by the CWG. I’m not sure about what we > >> mean by “approved budget.” In my mind, PTI prepares its budget in > >> discussion with the OCs so there will be a general expectation > >> that the budget is a community-agreed budget – if it isn’t, there > >> would be reason for the budget to be challenged. So > >> couldn’t/shouldn’t ICANN challenge the budget if there were > >> opposition from the community? I like the idea of a contract > >> commitment (but wouldn’t that undermine a community power in ICANN > >> to veto the IANA budget?) subject to there being a condition in > >> the contract for PTI to develop its budget in consultation with > >> the OCs (the CSC?), given that runaway budgets in the PTI will > >> have a knock-on effect on how much they have to pay to ICANN!____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ iii. __I like the contract-condition approach > >> because the same conditions would need to be transferred to any > >> new operator.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ iv. __(b) Shouldn’t this be a requirement on > >> the PTI? They are the ones with the budget and the obligations > >> that go with it. This would seem to be a contract condition.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ v. __(c) Again a contract condition?____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ vi. __As I noted above, I agree with Julie. > >> “Approval” should be part of PTI’s budget development (especially > >> for things like new investment, enhancing service level > >> expectations, new technology developments).____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> The CSC is an entity associated with the PTI: Is the framework > >> under 5 better included in the contract than in a fundamental > >> bylaw? On the other hand, there will be operational issues and > >> decisions that would fall under the purview of the ccNSO and GNSO > >> (selection of members, recall of members, escalation for example) > >> and these will probably need bylaw changes for the ccNSO and > >> GNSO. would these need to be fundamental bylaws, though?____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Under 6, isn’t this something for the PTI, not ICANN? I guess it > >> could be a condition in the ICANN-PTI contract that the PTI > >> develops a problem-resolution service, but I wonder how a bylaw in > >> ICANN would achieve this.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> 8.(e) talks about separation of PTI, but isn’t it the IANA > >> functions operation that is separated from PTI? And if that > >> happens, there is no reason to do other than wind PTI up as its > >> assets are transferred to the new operator.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> > >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > >> *Sent:* 12 August 2015 13:14 > >> *To:* Julie Hammer > >> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community > >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Julie,____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and > >> CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be > >> considered subject to review and comment.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Greg Shatan > >> > >> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer > >> <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com> <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>>> > >> wrote:____ > >> > >> Hi Leon,____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me > >> when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at > >> Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental > >> Bylaw:____ > >> > >> "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA > >> Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it > >> has come into effect." ____ > >> > >> In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject > >> (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for > >> the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA > >> budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was > >> intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic > >> plans, operating plans or budgets).____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is > >> para 381 on page 58:____ > >> > >> __379. __381 Accordingly, this new power > >> would give the community the ability to consider strategic and > >> operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately, > >> with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are > >> approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and > >> reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget > >> or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or > >> operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was > >> being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each > >> Budget or plan being challenged. ____ > >> > >> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the > >> word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Cheers, Julie____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > >> <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Hi all,____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of > >> the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping > >> our work forward.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from > >> the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. > >> This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but > >> provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If > >> you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. > >> (geek joke)____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Best regards,____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> León____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>____ > >> > >> *Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix*____ > >> > >> *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5____ > >> > >> *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> Dear All,____ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw > >> changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. ____ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> Could you please forward to the CWG?____ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> Thanks____ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* > >> Partner____ > >> > >> *Sidley Austin LLP > >> *555 California Street > >> Suite 2000 > >> San Francisco, CA 94104 > >> +1.415.772.1271 <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271> <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271> > >> sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> > >> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://www.sidley.com/ <http://www.sidley.com/>>____ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> ____ > >> > >> **************************************************************************************************** > >> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that > >> is privileged or confidential. > >> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail > >> and any attachments and notify us > >> immediately. > >> > >> ****************************************************************************************************____ > >> > >> <209588099_1.pdf>____ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Cwg-client mailing list > >> Cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client____ <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client____> > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____ <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____> > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Dear Athina, Thank you for flagging this issues. We will reach out to CWG Co-Chairs and coordinate with them to propose proper adjustments. Best regards, León > El 19/08/2015, a las 4:42, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> escribió: > > Dear Leon, all, > > Thank you for sharing the matrix with us. > > I understand that this addresses merely CWG issues and that it is only a > description of what the provisions will contain. However, as it also > touches upon CCWG accountability topics, we would like to flag a couple > of issues so that they are properly addressed in the actual bylaws text. > > In particular: > > - Section 7 - IANA Function Review. > It should be clear that this section refers to the IANA naming function > only. > > - Section 9 - Appeal Mechanism > As there is an exception for the ccTLDs, there should also be > such an exception for the numbers related disputes. > > Thank you very much. > > Athina > on behalf of the ASO reps > > > On 18/08/15 21:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As spotted by some, there are some inaccuracies in the matrix that need >> to be taken care of. >> >> I will make sure to pass your comments to the CWG Co-Chairs so that they >> can review them with counsel and make the corresponding corrections to >> the document. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >>> El 14/08/2015, a las 0:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> escribió: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> It is simple ,please replace the word" approve by " Reject " . >>> Tks >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-08-13 11:27 GMT+02:00 <Sabine.Meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de> >>> <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de>>>: >>> >>> Dear Julie, Martin, Greg, León,____ >>> >>> Dear all, ____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I have a further question about the matrix kindly shared by León, >>> regarding its section on PTI Governance, specifically Section 1 >>> subsection (a) (ii), i.e. “ jurisdiction of incorporation (i.e., >>> to change from California to another jurisdiction)“.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Have the deliberations of the CCWG whether or not a bylaw >>> requirement regarding location of headquarters should be a >>> Fundamental Bylaw (para 241 – 255 of the draft report) been taken >>> into account by the CWG? As I understand, the matrix refers to >>> changes in the ICANN bylaws so I was wondering whether it is fully >>> consistent with the CCWG proposal in this regard.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Best regards____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Sabine Meyer____ >>> >>> International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance____ >>> >>> Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy ____ >>> >>> Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn____ >>> >>> GERMANY____ >>> >>> Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948>____ >>> >>> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964>____ >>> >>> E-Mail: sabine.meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de> >>> <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de>>____ >>> >>> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/> <http://www.bmwi.de/ <http://www.bmwi.de/>>____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *Von:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> >>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>>] *Im Auftrag von >>> *Martin Boyle >>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 19:09 >>> *An:* Greg Shatan; Julie Hammer >>> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community >>> *Betreff:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Not sure why, but I did not see Julie’s original mail.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I agree with her point. There are also other parts of this >>> section of the matrix that raise questions for me:____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ i. __For all of “2. *ICANN Budget and IANA >>> Budget*” I think CWG should be consulted where it comes to the >>> IANA budget.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ ii. __(a) This is definitely something that >>> needs to be considered by the CWG. I’m not sure about what we >>> mean by “approved budget.” In my mind, PTI prepares its budget in >>> discussion with the OCs so there will be a general expectation >>> that the budget is a community-agreed budget – if it isn’t, there >>> would be reason for the budget to be challenged. So >>> couldn’t/shouldn’t ICANN challenge the budget if there were >>> opposition from the community? I like the idea of a contract >>> commitment (but wouldn’t that undermine a community power in ICANN >>> to veto the IANA budget?) subject to there being a condition in >>> the contract for PTI to develop its budget in consultation with >>> the OCs (the CSC?), given that runaway budgets in the PTI will >>> have a knock-on effect on how much they have to pay to ICANN!____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ iii. __I like the contract-condition approach >>> because the same conditions would need to be transferred to any >>> new operator.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ iv. __(b) Shouldn’t this be a requirement on >>> the PTI? They are the ones with the budget and the obligations >>> that go with it. This would seem to be a contract condition.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ v. __(c) Again a contract condition?____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ vi. __As I noted above, I agree with Julie. >>> “Approval” should be part of PTI’s budget development (especially >>> for things like new investment, enhancing service level >>> expectations, new technology developments).____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> The CSC is an entity associated with the PTI: Is the framework >>> under 5 better included in the contract than in a fundamental >>> bylaw? On the other hand, there will be operational issues and >>> decisions that would fall under the purview of the ccNSO and GNSO >>> (selection of members, recall of members, escalation for example) >>> and these will probably need bylaw changes for the ccNSO and >>> GNSO. would these need to be fundamental bylaws, though?____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Under 6, isn’t this something for the PTI, not ICANN? I guess it >>> could be a condition in the ICANN-PTI contract that the PTI >>> develops a problem-resolution service, but I wonder how a bylaw in >>> ICANN would achieve this.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> 8.(e) talks about separation of PTI, but isn’t it the IANA >>> functions operation that is separated from PTI? And if that >>> happens, there is no reason to do other than wind PTI up as its >>> assets are transferred to the new operator.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> >>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan >>> *Sent:* 12 August 2015 13:14 >>> *To:* Julie Hammer >>> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community >>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Julie,____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and >>> CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be >>> considered subject to review and comment.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer >>> <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com> <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>>> >>> wrote:____ >>> >>> Hi Leon,____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me >>> when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at >>> Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental >>> Bylaw:____ >>> >>> "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA >>> Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it >>> has come into effect." ____ >>> >>> In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject >>> (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for >>> the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA >>> budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was >>> intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic >>> plans, operating plans or budgets).____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is >>> para 381 on page 58:____ >>> >>> __379. __381 Accordingly, this new power >>> would give the community the ability to consider strategic and >>> operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately, >>> with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are >>> approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and >>> reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget >>> or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or >>> operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was >>> being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each >>> Budget or plan being challenged. ____ >>> >>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the >>> word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Cheers, Julie____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >>> <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Hi all,____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of >>> the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping >>> our work forward.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from >>> the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. >>> This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but >>> provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If >>> you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. >>> (geek joke)____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Best regards,____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> León____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>____ >>> >>> *Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix*____ >>> >>> *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5____ >>> >>> *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Dear All,____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw >>> changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. ____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> Could you please forward to the CWG?____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> Thanks____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* >>> Partner____ >>> >>> *Sidley Austin LLP >>> *555 California Street >>> Suite 2000 >>> San Francisco, CA 94104 >>> +1.415.772.1271 <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271> >>> sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> >>> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://www.sidley.com/ <http://www.sidley.com/>>____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that >>> is privileged or confidential. >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail >>> and any attachments and notify us >>> immediately. >>> >>> ****************************************************************************************************____ >>> >>> <209588099_1.pdf>____ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cwg-client mailing list >>> Cwg-client(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____ <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____> >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Dear all, As spotted by some, there are some inaccuracies in the matrix that need to be taken care of. I will make sure to pass your comments to the CWG Co-Chairs so that they can review them with counsel and make the corresponding corrections to the document. Best regards, León > El 14/08/2015, a las 0:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > Dear All, > It is simple ,please replace the word" approve by " Reject " . > Tks > Kavouss > > 2015-08-13 11:27 GMT+02:00 <Sabine.Meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de>>: > Dear Julie, Martin, Greg, León, <> > Dear all, > > > > I have a further question about the matrix kindly shared by León, regarding its section on PTI Governance, specifically Section 1 subsection (a) (ii), i.e. “ jurisdiction of incorporation (i.e., to change from California to another jurisdiction)“. > > > > Have the deliberations of the CCWG whether or not a bylaw requirement regarding location of headquarters should be a Fundamental Bylaw (para 241 – 255 of the draft report) been taken into account by the CWG? As I understand, the matrix refers to changes in the ICANN bylaws so I was wondering whether it is fully consistent with the CCWG proposal in this regard. > > > > Best regards > > > > Sabine Meyer > > International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance > > Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy > > Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn > > GERMANY > > Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948> > Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964> > E-Mail: sabine.meyer(a)bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de> > Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/> > > > Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Martin Boyle > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 19:09 > An: Greg Shatan; Julie Hammer > Cc: At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community > Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix > > > > Not sure why, but I did not see Julie’s original mail. > > > > I agree with her point. There are also other parts of this section of the matrix that raise questions for me: > > > > i. For all of “2. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget” I think CWG should be consulted where it comes to the IANA budget. > > > > ii. (a) This is definitely something that needs to be considered by the CWG. I’m not sure about what we mean by “approved budget.” In my mind, PTI prepares its budget in discussion with the OCs so there will be a general expectation that the budget is a community-agreed budget – if it isn’t, there would be reason for the budget to be challenged. So couldn’t/shouldn’t ICANN challenge the budget if there were opposition from the community? I like the idea of a contract commitment (but wouldn’t that undermine a community power in ICANN to veto the IANA budget?) subject to there being a condition in the contract for PTI to develop its budget in consultation with the OCs (the CSC?), given that runaway budgets in the PTI will have a knock-on effect on how much they have to pay to ICANN! > > > > iii. I like the contract-condition approach because the same conditions would need to be transferred to any new operator. > > > > iv. (b) Shouldn’t this be a requirement on the PTI? They are the ones with the budget and the obligations that go with it. This would seem to be a contract condition. > > > > v. (c) Again a contract condition? > > > > vi. As I noted above, I agree with Julie. “Approval” should be part of PTI’s budget development (especially for things like new investment, enhancing service level expectations, new technology developments). > > > > The CSC is an entity associated with the PTI: Is the framework under 5 better included in the contract than in a fundamental bylaw? On the other hand, there will be operational issues and decisions that would fall under the purview of the ccNSO and GNSO (selection of members, recall of members, escalation for example) and these will probably need bylaw changes for the ccNSO and GNSO. would these need to be fundamental bylaws, though? > > > > Under 6, isn’t this something for the PTI, not ICANN? I guess it could be a condition in the ICANN-PTI contract that the PTI develops a problem-resolution service, but I wonder how a bylaw in ICANN would achieve this. > > > > 8.(e) talks about separation of PTI, but isn’t it the IANA functions operation that is separated from PTI? And if that happens, there is no reason to do other than wind PTI up as its assets are transferred to the new operator. > > > > > > > > > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan > Sent: 12 August 2015 13:14 > To: Julie Hammer > Cc: At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix > > > > Julie, > > > > I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered subject to review and comment. > > > > Greg Shatan > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> wrote: > > Hi Leon, > > > > Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw: > > "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come into effect." > > In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or budgets). > > > > I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is para 381 on page 58: > > 379. 381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the ability to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each Budget or plan being challenged. > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix. > > > > Cheers, Julie > > > > > > On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <>> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work forward. > > > > The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves. > > > > If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke) > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > León > > > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > > > De: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com <>> > > Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix > > Fecha: 11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5 > > Para: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <>> > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. > > > > Could you please forward to the CWG? > > > > Thanks > > > > SHARON FLANAGAN > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > 555 California Street > Suite 2000 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > +1.415.772.1271 <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271> > sflanagan(a)sidley.com <> > www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> > > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > <209588099_1.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org <> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > >

1 0

Update on IANA IPR
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

All, Following the last CWG meeting, your co-chairs reached out to the chairs of the CRISP & IANAPLAN teams as well as the ICG chairs in order to discuss the overarching management of the IANA IPR issue. The purpose of the discussion was to focus, not on the substance of the issue, but rather to best understand the different backgrounds, the current status and the prospective routes forward, given where we are today. >From the perspective of the co-chairs of the CWG, a number of key points emerge as follows: 1. There seemed to be an overarching sensitivity to where we ALL are in the process and the requirement to not let this IANA IPR issue derail us from a "programme management" perspective. 2. A second overarching point, directly related to 1 above, is the desire (and effectively a requirement) not to do anything which will necessitate change any of the three RFP responses such that this change would require one or more of the three RFP respondents (names, numbers, protocols) to have to go back through their respective community processes with the associated risk of delaying the transition. 3. Through the current public comment period on the ICG proposal, there is the opportunity (for the CWG) to comment on the ICG proposal, but subject to 1 & 2 above. We also sought to better understand the various tracks of work (including that of the CWG) which have seen us arrive at this point and some of the detail in that work. Key points from that include: A. That there is a form of "backstop position" in the CRISP proposal that the IPR must not reside within the IFR in future. This underlying motivation derives from two points: a. In order to facilitate a smooth potential future transition of the IANA function b. To ensure that the IPR will be used in a non-discriminatory manner. B. An underlying motivation was that the IPR should be held somehow "in trust" for future use by the relevant users of that IPR C. That there seemed to be a strongly held view that the Sidley interpretation whereby ICANN could retain the IPR AND that this would be consistent with the CRISP proposal was not accurate. The argument presented being that ICANN is in fact the IANA Functions Operator, at least in in the case of numbers. D. The IETF is willing to be the holder of the IPR in the IETF trust which is for the public benefit and the global internet society. Therefore no conflict is envisaged by having the IPR held within the IETF Trust. Finally, we considered some next steps / actions as follows: - That the same group agree to talk again in approximately one week - CRISP is likely to prepare and share some responses to the Sidley memo on IPR - We can expect to see some further detail / information on the IETF Trust - ICG & CRISP offers any knowledge, information and assistance that they can reasonably provide - A request for any guidance on timelines from the CWG In summary, it seems that we (the CWG) need to separate our prospective contribution to implementation from any comment we may wish to make now - effectively to the ICG proposal. For now, we need to focus our attention on the ICG document and the urgent requirement is to consider whether or not the ICG proposal is consistent with the responses received and, if not, what comment we wish to submit. Moreover, to be mindful that any such comment must not require any of the three RFP responses to be referred back to the relevant responding community if we are to retain the current overarching timetable. Put simply, what can usefully be done now and what can usefully be done later during the implementation phase. For your reference, we have included some relevant extracts from the CRISP response, the ICG proposal and the Sidley memo which we have used in thinking about this issue. Thank-you Jonathan & Lise

9 27