September 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Questions from the ICG - batch 2
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear CWG, As indicated in my previous email, here is a second batch of questions from the ICG based on comments received during our public comment period. We have continued the numbering of the questions from the first batch. We do not expect to have any further questions for you at present although we may want to follow up upon receiving responses to these and from the other operational communities. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CWG requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. Some of the questions below include requests or suggestions for amendments to the text of the CWG proposal as reflected in Part 1 of the combined proposal. The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal if these amendments are made. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. PTI 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. 8) Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected to the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase. Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing “and” with “who” as follows: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” 9) Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.” Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point. Scope 10) The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions. Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 11) Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 12) Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes. Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

4 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that point in time). The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail. The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the proposal is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the proposal did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve. Alan At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I >think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one >essential requirement of the DTF. >We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA >Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. >As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the >ICANN-Verisign proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, >if any, would exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls >away, nor do we have a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate. > >--MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM > > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG > > Questions > > > > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal: > > > > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group: > > > > >The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of > > >Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or > > >during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as > > >few changes at the same time as possible. > > > > > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme. > > > > The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making > a relatively > > simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But > > yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > > >Dear All, > > > > > >In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG > > >Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the > > >attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG > > >questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for > > >CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share > > >your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the > > >CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Marika > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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

4 3

For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Marika Konings Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear All, In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. Thanks, Marika

7 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Chuck, you are correct, I did not explicitly address their question. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses ONLY 1150, Section 1. 1150, Section 2 has not, to our knowledge been addressed, and this can be done only by the NTIA. 1150, Section 3 is a recommendation for work to be carried out post-transition. [It is not clear how we can lock this in. It needs discussion] Alan At 30/09/2015 04:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Alan, > >I think you made my point much better than I did: ". . the >Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this (amending or >replacing the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement). That proposal is >solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the >moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk . . . the proposal >is addressing a completely different issue . . . " > >Part of our problem is the way the ICG question is worded: " the >ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the >Verisign/ICANN proposal (available >athttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_p…) >for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination >of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as >expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes >of Part 1 of the transition proposal. " > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM >To: Mueller, Milton L; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to >ICG Questions > >There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the >RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, >Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. >But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That >proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA >approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, >and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at >that point in time). > >The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need >to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail. > >The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the >proposal is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the >proposal did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve. > >Alan > > > >At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I > >think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one essential > >requirement of the DTF. > >We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA > >Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. > >As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign > >proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, if any, would > >exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls away, nor do we have > >a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate. > > > >--MM > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- > > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM > > > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to > > > ICG Questions > > > > > > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal: > > > > > > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group: > > > > > > >The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of > > > >Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or > > > >during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make > > > >as few changes at the same time as possible. > > > > > > > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme. > > > > > > The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making > > a relatively > > > simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to > > > Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > > > >Dear All, > > > > > > > >In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG > > > >Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared > > > >the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of > > > >the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point > > > >for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and > > > >share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to > > > >the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > > > >Marika > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

For your review - CWG Implementation Action items document
by Marika Konings Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear All, In relation to agenda item 3, please find attached a first draft of the CWG-Stewardship Implementation Inventory for your review and input. As you may recall, Chuck Gomes volunteered during the last meeting to provide an implementation list based on the CWG-Stewardship proposal. Following that meeting, the ICG reached out to the CWG-Stewardship Chairs with the request to provide input on the implementation action items / schedule, ideally by mid-week this week, following which this document was developed by Chuck. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs will reach out to the ICG to inform them that the CWG-Stewardship will review this topic during its meeting on Thursday and as such some additional time may be needed before a formal response can be provided. Please review this document ahead of Thursday's meeting and share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 07:39 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda - CWG-Stewardship Meeting Thursday 1 October Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting (scheduled for 11.00 UTC). Supporting documents for the different items will be circulated in separate emails to facilitate feedback via the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Meeting on Thursday 1 October 1. Opening Remarks 2. ICG Questions - review of draft responses 3. Implementation Schedule 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability 5. Update on legal work 6. AoB

6 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
by Marika Konings Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached an updated version in which I've incorporated the input received so far. Note that a draft response for question 13, part 2 is still missing. Please share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 07:57 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions Dear All, In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. Thanks, Marika

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - CWG Implementation Action items document
by Jaap Akkerhuis Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Oops, got sent from wrong account by accident, retry > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 18:06, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > I belive that the ICG had made a statement that once the proposal was transmitted to NTIA their role was complete no? Or has that position changed? Similar statements were made by the GNSO & ccNSO about this CWG as well (See https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/GNSO+Approval and https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/ccNSO+Approval) jaap

1 0

Quarterly Stakholder Call
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Report – Register for the FY16 Q1 call on 6 October 2015 This page is available in: * Português <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-pt> * Español <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-es> * Pусский <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-ru> * العربية <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-ar> * Français <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-fr> * 中文 <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-28-zh> * English <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-23-en#> ICANN has announced its FY16 Q1 Stakeholder Call, which will take place on 6 October at 00:00 UTC / 7 October 0800 SGT. The call will cover how ICANN has progressed against its strategic and operating plans for the Quarter ending 30 September 2015. Please click here <http://goo.gl/forms/TrqVNKvprt> to register for the call and to receive joining instructions. If you are unable to access the form, please email us <mailto:icann.communications@icann.org> to register with your full name and email address to send joining instructions to. The call is open for all to attend, including press, and there will be ample time for Questions & Answers (Q&A). A recording of the call will also be available online on the ICANN website here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> . These calls were set up to enhance ICANN's accountability and transparency efforts by making it easy to follow ICANN's progress toward fulfilling its mission of keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. More information Please visit the Reporting page <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> on the ICANN website 24 hours before the call to pre-read the presentation. You can also find other useful resources and background information on this page, as well as archived transcripts and recordings of all previous Quarterly Stakeholder Calls.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CWG-Stewardship Meeting Thursday 1 October
by Marika Konings Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting (scheduled for 11.00 UTC). Supporting documents for the different items will be circulated in separate emails to facilitate feedback via the mailing list. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Meeting on Thursday 1 October 1. Opening Remarks 2. ICG Questions - review of draft responses 3. Implementation Schedule 4. Update from CCWG-Accountability 5. Update on legal work 6. AoB

2 1

Upcoming CWG IANA Meetings
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Hi All, Just a quick note to bring you up to date on the CWG IANA Meeting schedule: Tuesday 29 Sep, Provisionally scheduled, now CANCELLED Thursday 01 Oct, 11h00, Provisionally scheduled, now CONFIRMED Tuesday 06 Oct, 17h00, Provisionally scheduled, now CONFIRMED Thursday 08 Oct, 11h00, Provisionally scheduled, now CONFIRMED Tuesday 13 Oct, 17h00, Provisionally scheduled, now CONFIRMED The calendar invites for the dates above were previously sent as "Tentative". They will now be sent as "Confirmed" so your calendars are accurate. Kind regards, Brenda

1 0