September 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

New meetings
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

I know I am missing the CWG meeting in progress, but can I ask why I see 4 full day meetingsa being scheduled over the next two weeks? -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

4 5

Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

All, You may find the attached to be useful background reading in relation to the CWGs consideration of its dependencies on the CCWG work. Thank-you. Jonathan

5 7

ICG Questions Volunteer Sign-Up
by Marika Konings Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear All, As requested during today's meeting, staff has created a wiki page with all the ICG questions to facilitate volunteer sign up, see https://community.icann.org/x/t5pYAw. If you are interested to work with others to develop a draft response for CWG-Stewardship review to these questions, please send an email to the list or directly to ICANN staff identifying which question(s) you would like to sign-up for and staff will update the wiki accordingly. Please note that the ICG has requested "responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC". Thanks, Marika

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #66 -- 24 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 66 on 24 September 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pYlYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (staff) Prepare a table with questions so as to search for drafting volunteers (include tentative questions). Action: Staff will send out an updated meeting schedule based on ICG and CCWG work. Action: Chuck will look to provide an implementation list based on CWG proposal. Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Currently have bi-weekly meetings scheduled * With ICG work, we may need to increase frequency of meetings. Chairs will revert to group tomorrow with updated schedule based on work. * Purpose of the meeting today is to address the ICG output from F2F (email from Alissa) and the work of the CCWG-Accountability. 2. ICG meeting Update (provided by ICG liaisons) * Suggestted order: Alissa (chaired ICG meeting); Milton (led on RZM issues); Martin (led on ccTLD issues) * ICG received 159 comments in ICG Public Comment (available on ICG website) * ICG went through comments and addressed questions, clarifications, suggestions to each operational community. * The first batch was sent to CWG-Stewardship on 24 September. There is more to come * Responses requested by 7 Oct or (at latest) 14 Oct. If more time is needed, please keep ICG informed. * On the RZM, more detail/clarification is needed on the roles and position of the CWG-Stewardship on these issues. * On ccTLD related issues, need to update policy by removing reference to ICP-1 and consider georgraphic balance for global ccTLDs (non ccNSO members) * Draft questions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy5o5gfnrp6i9iv/questions-for-OCs-v2.docx?dl=0 Action (staff) Prepare a table with questions so as to search for drafting volunteers (include tentative questions). 3. CCWG Update / Issues * CCWG Public Comment indicates possibility for changes/delay in proposal development * CCWG-Accountability has a Counsel-developped memo that compares differences between the CCWG-Accountability 2nd draft and the Board proposal for implementation. * Relevant to the CWG-Stewardship because we need to make sure that dependencies are met. * Need to understand context and not pre-empt the CCWG discussions 4. Legal Work / Client Committee * Bylaws drafting work is underway. * Complex project * Will be shared with CWG as soon as ready 5. AOB Action: Staff will send out an updated meeting schedule based on ICG and CCWG work. Action: Chuck will look to provide an implementation list based on CWG proposal. 6. Closing Remarks Thank you -- look to a revised schedule soon

1 0

New meetings
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

I know I am missing the CWG meeting in progress, but can I ask why I see 4 full day meetings being scheduled over the next two weeks? -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

1 0

Agenda for CWG Meeting #66 (24 September at 17:00 UTC)
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the agenda for meeting #66 (24 September at 17:00 UTC). Please note that while the call is scheduled for 2 hours, the Chairs propose to deal with the business within about an hour. Agenda 1. Opening Remarks 2. ICG meeting update 3. CCWG Update / Issues 4. Legal Work / Client Committee 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

2 1

Questions from the ICG - batch 1
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear CWG, Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CWG. We are sending these questions in more than one batch. The first batch below has agreement from the ICG so we are sending them now; we are aiming to send another batch before the end of the week. 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. RZM 1) Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro… <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…>) 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. 2) The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR].” Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "functions" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation.” The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. ccTLDs 3) We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment. 4) The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether Part 1 of the combined proposal could be adapted accordingly. If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined proposal. 5) We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Stewardship Transition: Full Steam Ahead - ICANN
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: 23 September 2015 02:02 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Stewardship Transition: Full Steam Ahead - ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-full-steam-ahead Last week the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) met in Los Angeles to review and discuss public comments concerning the <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop…> Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions [PDF, 2.07 MB]. Upon review of the comments received, the ICGdecided to continue advancing the proposal as planned, aiming to make <http://t.co/rTV6179hO0> as much progress as possibleby the time of ICANN 54, scheduled for October 19-22. <x-apple-data-detectors://2> During its <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per…> public comment period that concluded on September 8, the ICGreceived more than 150 comments from a wide variety of stakeholders all over the world. The majority of the comments expressed support for the proposal. In some cases that support was qualified by suggestions, questions, and criticism that the ICG is working hard to synthesize and address as appropriate. ICG members worked diligently before and during the Los Angeles meeting to assess the comments. The ICG divided the comments into categories (for example, those related to the Post-Transition IANA, the Root ZoneMaintainer, etc.) and for each category the ICG is examining whether the comments have already been addressed in the proposal development process, whether clarifications are needed from the ICG, or whether the ICG will pose questions or request clarifications from the operational communities. That work is ongoing and is expected to be finalized this week. ICG communications to the communities will request responses by mid-October to allow the ICG to prepare in advance of ICANN54. The ICG's decision to adhere to its planned timeline as much as possible without sacrificing quality for speed is notable in light of indications that the work in Work Stream 1 of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability (CCWG) is likely to be delayed. The ICGis closely following the work of the CCWG and expects to have more clarity about the trajectory of the CCWG's work after that group meets at the end of this week. The ICG's aggressive work schedule will be carried out via <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/> phone conferences and meetings which, as always, will be open to silent observers. The next ICGconference call is scheduled for <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> 23 September at 11:00 UTC. Finally, we chairs want to recognize in these busy days the hard work not only done by the communities, but our ICGmembers, our secretariat and ICANNstaff helping to ensure that we can move forward as effectively as we are. For more information, see <https://www.ianacg.org/> ianacg.org. Alissa Cooper, Patrik Fältström, Mohamed El Bashir ICG chair and vice-chairs Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 <tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Fwd: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 19, 2015

Sept. 19, 2015

Hi, The IETF Trust recently released a high level statement on what would be done in order for her to hold and maintain the IANA TM/domain It's also somewhat a call for any further suggestion so folks interested can jump into the discussions at the ianaplan. Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> Date: 19 Sep 2015 00:03 Subject: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan(a)ietf.org> Cc: We have discussed trademarks and domains in the past, and came to a basic agreement. Meanwhile, the names community has also indicated that the “IPR in an independent entity” model is acceptable to them. But the details for any of this are left for implementation phase. That phase will take place once the overall transition plan goes forward. The IETF Trust has worked in the background to understand the situation better, and obviously, if something needs to be done, ultimately there has to be agreements and concrete actions need to be taken. But before we are that far, we have to talk about the overall approach and find a common ground about the implementation with all three communities. With this in mind, the Trust has written up a high-level description of what it believes the approach could be. We thought that this would be useful for both this WG as well as for communication with others. Please see the description below. The Trust would appreciate any feedback you have. The goal is that after getting that feedback (and after revision as needed) we could have a description that can be used in discussing further implementation steps. Jari --- As a part of their transition proposal, the Internet Number Community stated that it was their preference that the IANA trademark and iana.org domain would be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and from their perspective the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. On 8 February, the ICG asked the IETF and Internet Number Community to coordinate their transition proposals with regards to the trademarks and domains. Discussion in the IETF working group indicated that the proposals can be compatible. At the request of the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015 asked the IETF Trust whether the Trust would be willing to hold IANA intellectual property. Citing Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement whereby the Trust could hold rights in intellectual property and domain names relevant to the IETF, the Trustees on 19 February said they would be willing to hold the IANA intellectual property. See http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Trust-Minutes-2015-06-25-01.pdf At the request of the IETF Chair the IETF Trust has engaged in discussions with the Internet Number Community about the possibility of the Trust assuming this responsibility. The following is some background of the Trust’s position and an overview of how the role and responsibilities may be fulfilled. While this fulfillment is a part of implementation rather than the ICG proposal currently out for public comment, the IETF Trust wants to ensure progress on determining those implementation steps. The Trust is of course only one of the possible ways to satisfy the requirements from the Internet Number Community. Nevertheless, the Trust wanted to start by suggesting an overall framework for one way of satisfying the requirements. There will be a time to discuss the details, but first it would be good to have an understanding if this overall framework is something that works for the relevant communities. This is only an early proposal. Feedback and suggestions are very welcome. The Trust believes it would need to enter into three different types of agreements to effect the transfer of the IANA intellectual property (IP) and to enter into licensing arrangements with the IANA service provider(s). These agreements include: 1. An Agreement between ICANN and the IETF Trust transferring the IANA IP to the IETF Trust 2. Community Assurance Agreements between the IETF Trust and each of the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the IANA communities) regarding the Trust’s commitments to each as further described below, and 3. Agreement(s) whereby the IETF Trust provides for the use of the iana.org domain, or a subdomain, and licenses the use of the IANA trademarks to the IANA service provider(s) selected by the IANA communities. The Trustees are open, in principle, to the idea of entering into these agreements. The Trust understands that each community would need to follow its own internal processes before entering into any agreements, or selecting an IANA service provider. The Community Assurance Agreements with the IANA communities would establish and recognize the responsibilities for each community to identify and enter into agreement with their selected service provider, and for the IETF Trust to provide, update, and revoke licenses as needed to support these selections. In order to preserve the value and integrity of the IANA trademarks, the IETF Trust would maintain, license and monitor the use of the trademarks. Trust actions would include enforcement against unauthorized users and monitoring the quality and uses by the licensed user(s). The Trust would work with the relevant IANA communities to address issues involving a licensee before taking action to maintain the quality of the trademarks. The exact details of the agreements would be subject to negotiation among the affected parties. _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

1 0

GAO report is publicly available
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Dear all, GAO’s report on NTIA’s proposed transition of the IANA functions has been publicly released and is available via the link below: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642 Warmest regards, Olivier

1 0