March 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

DT-O Message Regarding Bylaws Need
by Gomes, Chuck March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

(The following message is being sent simultaneously to the CWG Stewardship list and to Becky Burr who is representing the CCWG Accountability in the legal team meetings occurring today to discuss CWG-related Bylaws.) The CWG Stewardship Design Team O (IANA Budget) met today (23 March) and decided to recommend that an ICANN Bylaw be included to ensure multi-year continuity of IANA services funding. DT-O does not have final language for this Bylaw nor does it have the expertise to draft the language but included the financial objective and a draft of the Bylaw below to assist the Bylaws drafters. DT-O is sharing this information today because the legal teams are meeting in Los Angeles today to discuss CWG-related Bylaws. While DT-O's recommendations still need to be considered and approved by the full CWG-Stewardship, there is unprecedented urgency in today's communication in order to meet the Bylaws drafting timeline. Please note that the CWG-Stewardship has discussed the topic of IANA services funding in its meetings recently and instructed DT-O to come up with recommended language and provisions for the FY17 budget, so we believe that DT-O's recommendations are consistent with CWG-Stewardship's agreed positions. Updated draft financial objective for IANA services (*still needs to be reviewed by DT-O and approved by full CWG-Stewardship; red font indicates language still under consideration): The financial objectives of the IANA Functions / PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence for IANA services. Financial stability is defined in this context as [segregated from / sufficient isolation of] the IANA services funding from ICANN's funding to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA services as a result of changes to ICANN's financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for the IANA services that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence in this context means that there are sufficient funds budgeted for and allocated to ensure that the IANA services are delivered with operational excellence. Proposed bylaw language (*still needs to be reviewed by DT-O and approved by full CWG-Stewardship): To respect the operational and financial autonomy of the IANA/PTI service to the community, the Board of ICANN shall provide an arms-length mechanism for the management board of PTI to be able to undertake the independent financial administration and accountability of PTI by ensuring a dedicated rolling three year reserve for future expenses and contingencies reasonably related to the legitimate activities of PTI. Respectfully, Chuck Gomes (DT-O Lead)

1 0

Meeting Notes from IOTF Call #1 (21 March 2016)
by Yuko Green March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

Dear members of the CWG Stewardship, During ICANN55, the CWG chairs have suggested that an Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) be formed to provide input on the implementation of the ICG proposal. This Task Force is currently made up of the CWG chairs, the leads of the CWG design teams and ICANN implementation team. We have reached out to NRO EC and IAB/IETF leadership for their participation as well. The IOTF is planned to have an ongoing call twice a week. It has had its first meeting on 21 March 2016 and I am circulating the meeting notes below. The presentation material, audio and AC room recordings are now posted at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under "Meetings & Work Sessions" section. ********Meeting Notes******** IOTF Call #1 21 March 2016 @ 15:00 UTC Please note that this meeting is being recorded. Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks (Jonathan/Lise) 2. Overview and objective of IOTF (Jonathan/Lise) a. Composition b. Work method 3. Implementation items (Trang) a. Overview of initial list of implementation item requiring input from IOTF b. Discussion of list, including addition of any items Notes: Mailing list to be open list for subscribers (Read only) and write permission is given only to IOTF group Agenda #3. Implementation items (Trang) ICANN-PTI Contract should be added to the list of implementation items requiring input from IOTF Staff should provide the proposals for each of the listed items to facilitate the discussion DT-O work will go directly to CWG, not to IOTF Selection of PTI independent Board of Directors One option is for ccNSO and GNSO to nominate the interim directors for this year Another option is for Jonathan and Lise to be the interim Directors Can NomCom be utilized for independent Board of Directors? Those directors need to be knowledgeable about IANA functions NomCom could be utilized if given the specific selection criteria that is customer centric NomCom to appoint, subject to being provided a criteria from customers of IANA functions, subject to relevant legal constraint. We need a mechanism for interim appointment, potentially by GNSO (RySG), ccNSO/cc's. ICANN Bylaws should include provisions for interim appointment. PTI Structure There are concerns about moving the IANA staff into PTI raised during Marrakech. Currently pending ICANN Legal to provide a memo. Operational efficiency will be gained if Names functions only were moved to PTI If PTI is not looking after all 3 functions, there will be a question of stewardship of IANA Concrete proposals for how PTI could be structured and organized from a staff's point of view should be provided for IOTF to review and evaluate Separate the legal constraint and nice-to-have items Next call agenda - Selection of PTI independent Board of Directors Is NomCom the right mechanism? Interim selection ongoing selection - PTI Structure 3 functions moves to PTI vs. only names function Action Items: 1. Reach out to ICG, numbers, and protocol communities for IOTF call participation (Trang) 2. Schedule calls for Mondays and Wednesdays after doodle poll (Yuko) Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> yuko.green(a)icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Reminder: 12 days left to comment on Principles for CCWGs
by Grace Abuhamad March 21, 2016

March 21, 2016

Hi Eberhard, This is the forum email: comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org From: Eberhard Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:24 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reminder: 12 days left to comment on Principles for CCWGs What is the target email to send this to? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6 On 21 Mar 2016, at 18:09, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Just a quick note to remind you that there are 12 days left to submit comments on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. As of right now, only one comment has been submitted (by our faithful CCWG-Accountability co-Chair Mathieu Weill, no less!). If you need a review of what this is all about, my original impassioned note is below :) Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:14 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and observers, I’m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. I’ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. Why you? You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share. What’s the point? There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but they are such an awesome form of multistakeholder policymaking that the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. How much time do I have? The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days left, until 23 April at 23:59 UTC. You could jot down some thoughts during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the action during the sessions! The email to which your comments may be sent is: <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org>. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc’ed here). I am passionate about this work because we’ve innovated and learned so much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing that path forward. —Grace <ccwg-framework-principles-draft-19feb16-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Reminder: 12 days left to comment on Principles for CCWGs
by Grace Abuhamad March 21, 2016

March 21, 2016

Dear all, Just a quick note to remind you that there are 12 days left to submit comments on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. As of right now, only one comment has been submitted (by our faithful CCWG-Accountability co-Chair Mathieu Weill, no less!). If you need a review of what this is all about, my original impassioned note is below :) Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:14 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and observers, I’m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. I’ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. Why you? You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share. What’s the point? There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but they are such an awesome form of multistakeholder policymaking that the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. How much time do I have? The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days left, until 23 April at 23:59 UTC. You could jot down some thoughts during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the action during the sessions! The email to which your comments may be sent is: <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org>. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc’ed here). I am passionate about this work because we’ve innovated and learned so much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing that path forward. —Grace

2 1

FW: [client com] CWG - ICANN Bylaws
by Jonathan Robinson March 21, 2016

March 21, 2016

All, FYI. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 19 March 2016 00:44 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG - ICANN Bylaws Dear All, Attached is a revised draft of the CWG-related ICANN bylaws, clean and marked against the draft from November 6. We have also attached a list of remaining open questions. We also understand that ICANN legal will be taking these and working on a draft that moves sections into attached policies and appendices, as appropriate. Will CWG be forwarding this to the ICANN Bylaws working group or should we? Kind regards, Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@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. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance
by Grace Abuhamad March 18, 2016

March 18, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…. A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance On 10 March 2016, a plan to transition the IANA stewardship from the U.S. government's oversight to a global multistakeholder community was submitted to NTIA for consideration. Witnessing the extraordinary efforts of the multistakeholder community to develop these proposals has been impressive and humbling. While the community has been working hard to finalize the proposals included in the plan, my team and I have been diligently preparing for the implementation phase of the anticipated IANA stewardship transition. One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root ZoneMaintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. Today, I want to provide you with some background information on the RZMA and an update on our progress. As noted in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal, the complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA Functions Operator (ICANN), the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (NTIA). Specifically, the role of NTIA will be eliminated and a written agreement between ICANN and Verisign establishing each party's role will need to be in place once that happens. On 4 March 2015, NTIA officially requested that ICANN and Verisign work together to develop a proposal on how best to transition NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management. Of paramount importance is accomplishing this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone management process. ICANN and Verisign are close to having terms and conditions that accomplish this essential objective and that clearly define the respective roles and responsibilities of each party. In general, we have already agreed that Verisign will be compensated for performance of the maintainer function and will have obligations to meet certain service-level agreements (SLAs) that the parties may adjust to address recommendations of the Customer Standing Committee pursuant to a change control process anticipated in the agreement. This change process is being defined to allow for the community to introduce through ICANN improvements to the Root Zone Management System as well. While the term of the RZMA is intended to promote the security, stability and resiliency of root zone maintenance operations by having Verisign continue in its role, the agreement also provides a capability for the community, through a consensus-based community-driven process, to cause ICANN to transition the function to another service provider after an agreed-upon number of years. There are some remaining issues that need to be resolved before we finalize a draft of the agreement. It's difficult to enumerate these issues because discussions are ongoing and the status of the issues changes frequently. However, we are making good progress and expect to complete a draft soon. Once ICANN and Verisign have completed the draft agreement, it will be posted for a 30-day community review period. This is in accordance with ICANN's transparency as well as in keeping with the recommendation in the ICG proposal to make the draft proposal available for public review prior to execution. There is still work to do but we are making good progress. I encourage you to explore the web pages listed below for more information and to keep abreast of the latest developments. Root Zone Administrator Proposal Related to the IANA Functions Stewardship Transition [PDF, 247 KB] IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation IANA Stewardship and Accountability

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 17 March 2017
by Brenda Brewer March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 17 March 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/cblYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action item #1: Staff to add clarifying points to main objectives of financial stability and operational excellence and circulate these to the DT for review prior to next week's meeting. * Action item #2: All to share ideas on how to have multi-year guarantee of funding ahead of next week's meeting. * Action item #3: Staff to pull from the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals those items that specifically relate to IANA Services Funding Notes 4. Cooption of DT-O into a bigger group that is also dealing with CCWG matters? a. Who would the bigger group include that are not in DT-O? (Jordan Carter) b. Discussion c. Next steps * What are the possible implications? What issues does the CCWG have to deal with in relation with Budget? Does CCWG already have a group in place? First meeting of informal CCWG group was held in Marrakesh - those same people would likely be interested to join this effort (see minutes of that meeting). Primary issue for CCWG is defining a framework for a caretaker budget for the overall ICANN budget. Outstanding questions from that meeting was Xavier's suggestion to incorprate in that budget a caretaker budget for PTI or does that needs to be separate. In FY17 draft budget open question how much is spent and how these expenses will be funded - not decided yet whether this would come from the reserve fund. Assuming in the budget that CWG-Stewardship implementation moves forward and as such PTI operation costs are included in the FY17 draft budget. What is not included at the moment is any costs related to the implementation / further work on any other transition related work such as WS2 or implementation of other aspects. * Not clear yet how PTI will be implemented which is being worked on by a CWG-Stewardship Task Force. Need to ensure co-ordination between all these different streams of activity. * Make sure that focus is not lost by widening the scope of this effort. * CCWG-Accountability mechanisms also cover PTI. * Need to confirm who is covering IANA care-taker budget if two groups decide to work separately * Proposed approach: CCWG members are welcome to participate in DT-O meetings, but will recommend to the CCWG-Accountability the formation of a separate group to focus on the CCWG Budget related elements. DT-O to cover IANA Services / PTI care-taker budget, which would include all IANA services (with PTI being a sub-set). * Consider taking similar approaches with regards to care-taker budget through regular communication / co-ordination. * Question is whether IANA services care-taker budget would be part of the overall care-taker budget or not. Both groups to check in with each other in a couple of weeks to discuss further. * From ICANN Finance perspective it would make more sense to tackle both in one approach and then solicit input from the different groups. Consider setting up email distribution list that would combine both groups. 1. Define the financial objective(s) for PTI a. Please note Olivier's message on this topic: i. Primary objective: "financial sustainability for IANA" ii. Two main components: a) Financial stability ("The IANA budget must be set well in advance and must therefore be predictable. Any sudden change in circumstances, whether internal or external to IANA, which may trigger an increase in the IANA budget, must be covered to a certain extent. (which we might need to define)." b) Financial independence from ICANN b. Discussion c. Agree on next steps for finalizing the financial objectives * What do we want to achieve? Stability in light of lack of financial independence (immunity of the IANA operations budget from ICANN's), operational excellence (ensure there are sufficient funds to guarantee operational excellence), operational financial independence. Financial stability and operational excellence would cover all the points made. Consider adding some clarifying notes to explain these in further detail. Action item #1: Staff to add clarifying points to main objectives of financial stability and operational excellence and circulate these to the DT for review prior to next week's meeting. 2. Develop a recommendation for ensuring multi-year continuity of IANA Services funding a. Brainstorm ideas b. Discuss pros & cons of ideas c. Agree on a process for determining a DT-O recommendations * Have to make sure that current operational budget is in PTI's control. Money has to be transferred to PTI in the beginning of the year. PTI should be isolated from any financial issues that ICANN may encounter. Need to segregate money from ICANN budget so it is available for PTI to spend. * Possible options to ensure multi-year guarantee to be further considered: hold year's budget in escrow, would an insurance be an option or bank cash deposit * Minimize complexity but also factor in what could happen in case of bankruptcy. See also Sidley memo: A parent entity bankruptcy filing does not result in a subsidiary entity also becoming a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding, regardless of whether the subsidiary is a non-profit corporation or LLC. Thus, a wholly owned subsidiary is not also a "debtor" in bankruptcy unless its governing body specifically determines that it should file for bankruptcy or there is some basis to substantively consolidate the subsidiary with the parent (which is unlikely in this circumstance. * Clarification by what is meant with budget - a budget is not a bucket in which there is money, a budget is the quantification of a perspective action plan in monetary terms (resources required to deliver onthat action plan). Avoid confusing budget and bank account. * If there is anything that needs to go into Bylaws would need to be identified as soon as possible as that process has started. * Which issue is early approval of PTI budget solving? Financial stability issue - community felt there needs to be an approved budget sooner than the ICANN budget factoring in the critical nature of the IANA Functions. What seems to be the point is that the funding of IANA/PTI is secured, this is quite a different point than having the budget approved early/late. Other reason was to ensure that any concerns with IANA Budget could be dealt with at an early stage. * Xavier / Finance Team will be responsible for drafting the process for the development and approval of the PTI budget in consultation with DT-O (as such, no need to reach out to Elise which was identified earlier as an action item). Action item #2: All to share ideas on how to have multi-year guarantee of funding ahead of next week's meeting. Action item #3: Staff to pull from the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals those items that specifically relate to IANA Services Funding

1 0

Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
by Grace Abuhamad March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise

16 31

CCWG-Accountability Proposal Approved by Chartering Organizations
by Grace Abuhamad March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

Dear all, In case some of you are not yet aware, the CCWG-Accountability proposal has been approved by all six Chartering Organizations. The CCWG-Accountability is meeting today at 0900 UTC to provide an update, transmit its proposal to the ICANN Board, and discuss next steps. If you would like to tune-in, please see remote participation details below: Remote Participation: CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Working Session (*linked to ICANN55 Meeting page) Thursday, 10 March from 09:00 – 12:00 UTC | Time zone converter here (Local Marrakech time: 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM/WET) -- Room: Oliveraie Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/rak55-oliveraie/

3 2

Final version of Bylaws Matrix Responses
by Grace Abuhamad March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

Dear all, Here attached is the final version of the bylaws matrix responses. Thank you to those who submitted feedback. The document is now ready for the Client Committee to instruct Sidley on next steps. For information, the outcome on the three issues raised is as follows: Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Suggestion to proceed with "will commence not later than two years after the Transition” Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR: There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, the suggestion is to move forward with: " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " Best, Grace From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues These suggestions seem fine to me. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: 02/29/2016 5:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues Thank you Martin and Cheryl. Is there any additional feedback? We would like to finalize this by the end of the week. Summary of feedback so far: Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Support: Donna, Paul, Cheryl, Martin No objections Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Martin suggested the following compromise text: "will commence not later than two years after the Transition” Support: Martin, Cheryl No objections Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR: There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, Martin suggested: " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " Support: Martin, Cheryl No objections Please send your feedback as soon as possible on list so that we can pass the responses to Sidley and proceed with the work plan. Thank you, Grace From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues Grace thank you for this... Sorry for a slight delay in reply, please see my responses inter-spaces below... <CLO> Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 26 February 2016 at 04:41, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team, Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have. On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. Looking forward to your input, Grace A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached): There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address: Issue #1: Thresholds For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, “supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.” Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated. Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils? <CLO> I would suggest going with the existing OP's within the Councils... Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR “will not commence” until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed. CWG needs to choose: 1. The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition 2. The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition <CLO> I rather like the text proposed by Martin => “will commence not later than two years after the Transition” Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR “may” include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period. If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR. <CLO> In my view it would be best for most circumstances ( and provide a higher degree of understanding and predictability within the wider ICANN Community if the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community Mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, but again I am rather leaning towards also picking up in the flexibility allowed by Martin's proposed text => " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1