April 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Brief update from CWG Co-Chairs
by Jonathan Robinson April 29, 2016

April 29, 2016

All, As you will have noted, we elected not to have a meeting this week on Thursday 28 April. There are regular meetings of the Implementation Oversight group taking place and you will have seen the notes circulated by Yuko Green from the meeting of April 27. Please do look over the implementation work as reflected in the reports and discussions of the IOTF group. One developing issue is that we will need to instruct Sidley to review and comment on the formation documents of PTI i.e. Articles, Bylaws and the Conflict of Interest policy. We will use the client committee to do so and communicate with the CWG accordingly. The next meeting of the CWG is scheduled for 2 weeks from 28 April i.e. Thursday i.e. 12 March and at this stage, we expect to hold that meeting in order to bring the CWG up to speed with implementation and to discuss any relevant matters. Thank-you for your ongoing attention to the implementation work. Lise & Jonathan

1 0

IOTF Call #7 - Meeting Notes (27 April 2016 @ 19:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Dear members of the CWG Stewardship, Below, please find the meeting notes from the IOTF Call #7. The presentation material, transcript, and AC room and audio recordings are now posted at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under "Meetings & Work Sessions" section. *** Meeting Notes *** Implementation Oversight Task Force (ITOF) call #7 27 Apr 2016 @ 19:00 UTC Please note that this meeting is being recorded. To mute or unmute, select *6 (Star-Six) If you would like to review the last call(s), the recordings and presentation materials are posted publicly here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Items * RZERC Charter: Obtain final agreement from IOTF on the draft circulated * IANA Escalation Mechanism: Is there any other comments and feedback from the IOTF on Chuck's clarification? * Document Review Process & Timeline: 1) Continue discussion regarding document review process, and 2) review timeline 3. AOB 4. Closing Remarks Notes: Apology - Donna A, Jonathan R IANA Escalation Mechanism * Response provided by Chuck is based on the discussion with the design team. * Keep this item open until next Wednesday call Action Items: * RZERC charter - Remove the "(possibly as Chair)" from Composition section (ICANN) * RZERC charter - Delete "AS" from the first sentence from "Records of Proceedings" (ICANN) * RZERC charter - Add "minutes shall be posted as soon as possible" at Records & Proceeding section (ICANN) * RZERC charter - Replace "as prudent" with "as appropriate" at the last section of the Meetings (ICANN) * Forward the term sheet of the PTI formation documents to the client committee for Sidley's review (ICANN) * ICANN-PTI Contract - Add Annex M as an additional input source (ICANN) * Pull language off of draft ICANN bylaws re: ICANN-PTI contract and circulate to IOTF mail list (ICANN) * ICANN to discuss internally how the ICANN-PTI contract can be shared before the whole draft is ready (ICANN) ***Chat History*** Yuko Green: Hello everybody, welcome t o IOTF call #7 matthew shears: hi could you remind me when the RZERC doc was circulated - thanks Yuko Green: @Matthew: It was Monday at 7pm PDT through IOTF mailing list from Trang matthew shears: OK thanks Allan MacGillivray: Hi everyone. That's me on 5335. Yuko Green: Who may be phone # 5335? Chuck Gomes: Hi all Yuko Green: Thank you Allan matthew shears: phone is live Allan James Gannon: Hi All Yuko Green: You have scrolling control as RZERC charter is on slide 4 and 5 James Gannon: Yeah I think that was from the proposal but can be done away with now matthew shears: that needs to be made clear then Alissa Cooper: I still think this is over-specifying a bunch of details that should be left to the committee itself, but I am giving up on that line of argument Alissa Cooper: the document needs an edit pass for grammar James Gannon: Works for me matthew shears: in the last sentence under meetings what does the word prudent refer to? matthew shears: shouldn't it read as appropriate? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lol James Gannon: If Chcuk is happy I am matthew shears: + 1 to Chuck's clarifications Avri Doria: sound like reasonable repsonses to me. Avri Doria: and as a member of that team they were what i remembered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): th Avri Doria: is there an open issue of incompatitiblity between this and the agreed plan? Avri Doria: makes sense to wait for a another week. Avri Doria: to make sure that is is closed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): not that I am aware of (yet) Avri but NP with another weeek Avri Doria: next call is a good compromise Chuck Gomes: Does Paul want a full week? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): next Wed call if we run the Mon one as well Paul Kane: agree matthew shears: where does responsibility for drafting the contract between ICANN and PTI lie? Alissa Cooper: that's on the next slide matthew shears: :) thanks matthew shears: shouldn't the IOTF review the full draft before it goes to the CWG? Grace Abuhamad: The document was forwarded to the Client Committee here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-April/000440.html Grace Abuhamad: It's the process Chuck Gomes: It seems to me that the full drafts can be reviewed by the IOTF at the same time that Sidley is reviewing them. matthew shears: ok Chuck Gomes: When are the ICANN Bylaws targeted for approval? Paul Kane: Agree Alissa matthew shears: 27th May? Chuck Gomes: Thanks Matthew. matthew shears: understood - lets do it inparallel with Sidley Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Russ Housley: This structure impacts all of the operational communities, so we would like to know the proposed way forward as soon as possible James Gannon: +1 Russ matthew shears: + 1 Russ James Gannon: Principles in bylaws and details in contract would be what i expected Trang Nguyen: @Russ: Understood, Russ. Chuck Gomes: I have to drop off. Thanks all. matthew shears: I think that it would be useful of key parts of teh contract were shared as they were available rather than waiting on the full draft Lise Fuhr: Bye Chuck James Gannon: I think thats still a little fuzzy Trang at the moment James Gannon: On how much control there is over that contract from the provisions in the ICANN bylaws matthew shears: assuming the ICANN bylaws don't change Alan Greenberg: I suspect it will be easier to change the PTI Bylaws than the PTI-ICANN contract. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx Greg Paul Kane: Alan - agree Paul Kane: But Bylaws have a formal process matthew shears: + 1 Alissa on structure matthew shears: and +1 on review as well Alan Greenberg: Don't recall for sure, but I think PTI Bylaws are purely up to PTI Board. Appealable because ultimately controlled by ICANN, but no community process. Russ Housley: @Alan: One contract with three parts or three options is fine. A contract for the naming functions with options for the other two is quite different Alan Greenberg: @Russ, my reference was just with regard to Pauls statement about things in the PTI Bylaws as opposed to the contract. Paul Kane: Agree Lise matthew shears: we would also read the whole but it might expedite things and assuage some concerns along the way Lise Fuhr: @Trang it is more the structure than the details Allan MacGillivray: Many of the principles in Annex C that are important to the ccTLD community are also in the darft contract terms that were attached to the CWG proposal. They were deemed to be so important that they are mentioned twice so we need them reflected in nthe bylaws and the PTI contract. Lise Fuhr: Thank you Trang Avri Doria: thanks matthew shears: thanks all Lise Fuhr: All James Gannon: thanks trang thanks yuko Allan MacGillivray: Thanks everyone. 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

IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 1)
by Grace Abuhamad April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

Dear all, Here below is the first implementation update from Trang Nguyen. Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update…. IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 1) This update marks the beginning of an initiative mentioned by Akram Atallah in his 12 April 2016 blog, aimed at keeping interested stakeholders up to date on the latest developments and progress relating to implementation planning for the IANA Stewardship Transition, the proposal for which is currently under review by NTIA. These updates will detail what work has been identified based on the proposals of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), and provide insight into what is happening on a week-to-week basis. Our goal is to provide consistent, structured updates that give any interested party access to latest information, documents and announcements. We will also post direct links to the mailing lists where conversations are taking place on each of the planning elements. ICANN has identified work that must be completed for the transition to occur successfully. The planned work has been mapped across 14 projects and grouped into 3 tracks. You can find more information on the ICANN website here. - Trang Nguyen, Senior Director of Strategic Programs Root Zone Management The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root ZoneManagement System (RZMS) to remove NTIA's authorization role, parallel testing of the production and parallel test RZMS systems; and the development, and execution of an agreement with Verisign as the root zone maintainer. Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing Status update: In accordance with the plan submitted to NTIA, ICANN and Verisign completed system code changes and began a 90-day “parallel testing” period on Wednesday, 6 April 2016. This is a key planning step to ensure the continued security and stability of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) operation after the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, currently projected for September 30, 2016. It has been almost 3 weeks since the start of parallel testing and everything is going smoothly. Click here to view Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparisons reports of all the root zone files generated. In the event that no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS, the testing period will end successfully on 5 July 2016. Documents/announcements posted: % ICANN and Verisign Announce Start of 90-day Root Zone Management System “Parallel Testing” Period 2 Verisign Daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparisons Mailing list(s): None. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) Status update: ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussion to prepare for a RZMA. The current plan for completion of a draft RZMA is the end of this month. Documents/announcements posted: None. Mailing list(s): None. Stewardship Transition The Stewardship Transition planning track contains projects to prepare relationship documentation with the operational communities, creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) entity, establishment of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and a Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), operationalizing the IANA customer service escalation mechanisms and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services Status update: On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) published an announcementregarding version 5.1 of the SLA document. The SLA will be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption when the NRO andICANN establish a mutually agreed upon date. Documents/announcements posted: % Updated 5.1 and Signature Version of the SLA for the IANA Numbering Services 2 Service Level Agreement for IANA Numbering Services (v5.1) Mailing list(s): + https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/ Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Status update: ICANN continues to work on the plan for PTI implementation that the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) requested, as well as the ICANN-PTI contract. What is the IOTF? The IOTF was formed following ICANN55 in Marrakech. The IOTF offers a channel for ICANN to request insights or clarifications to ensure that ICANN and the community remain aligned on ICANN’s implementation planning efforts of the ICG Proposal. The group was formed to include the co-Chairs and Design Team leads of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship), and has since grown to also include representatives from the ICG, Numbering Resources community and Protocol Parameters community. Documents/announcements posted this week: None. Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Status update: ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the terms of the RZERC Charter. A revised charter was circulated to the IOTF on 25 April 2016. Documents/announcements: 2 Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v3) Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ IANA Customer Service Escalation Mechanism Status update: ICANN received clarification from the IOTF regarding the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions and IANA Problem Resolution Process (for IANA naming services only) referenced in Annex I and J of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. As next step, ICANN will update relevant process documentations for these processes. Documents/announcements: None. Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Accountability Enhancements The Accountability Enhancements track contains plans to implement enhancements to ICANN’s Independent Review and Reconsideration Request processes, to update ICANN’s governance documents, and to operationalize new community powers defined by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability (CCWG-Accountability). ICANN's Bylaws Status update: ICANN has posted proposed draft new Bylaws for a 30-day public comment from 21 April - 21 May 2016 to allow any interested party to review and provide feedback. 2 Public Comment Page + Submit Comment to Forum + Comments Forum The proposed draft of the new ICANN Bylaws was developed collaboratively by the ICANN legal team and the independent counsel hired to advise the CCWG-Accountability and the CWG-Stewardship. In developing the draft new ICANN Bylaws, the attorneys consulted a Bylaws Coordination Group populated with both community and Board members, as well as with the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Adoption of the new Bylaws by the ICANN Board is anticipated for on or around 27 May 2016. Once new ICANN Bylaws have been adopted, ICANN will notify NTIA. Once adopted, the Bylaws are expected to go into effect if NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires. Documents/announcements: 2 Draft New ICANN Bylaws 2 Comparison of Draft New ICANN Bylaws to Current Bylaws Mailing list(s): + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/ + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/ + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ + http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/

1 0

Call Cancelled -- > No call on Thursday 27 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

Dear all, You will receive a cancellation notice for the CWG-Stewardship call tomorrow. In lieu of a call, we will provide a few updates via the mailing list. I will be sending out an implementation update from Trang Nguyen later today. 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.

1 0

Invitation to join CCWG ACCT Meeting - 27 April @ 04:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Dear all, The CCWG-ACCT is planning to conduct a Q&A about the Bylaws on their call tomorrow at 04:00 UTC. All three legal teams (ICANN, Sidley, and Adler) have made themselves available for this call, so this is a good opportunity to engage with them regarding any questions you may have. In particular, there will be a discussion about grandfathered agreements (Section 1.1) for which the CCWG-ACCT Chairs have asked me to extend the call invitation to interested participants in the CWG-Stewardship. The Adobe Connect room for the call is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability. If you would like to receive full call details, please contact Brenda Brewer (cc’ed). Thank you, 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: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:34 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 27 April @ 04:00 UTC Dear all, In advance of the call tomorrow, please be sure to read through the attached document. This document provides an explanation of grandfathered agreements and corresponds to item #5 on the agenda below. This document was sent to the Bylaws Coordination Group and then circulated by Mathieu Weill to the CCWG-ACCT last week (link). Since we have confirmed the necessary attendees for the call, item #5 is confirmed (no longer tentative as it was listed when the agenda was sent out). Thank you, 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: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 1:52 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 27 April @ 04:00 UTC Dear All, In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability Meeting #92 – Wednesday, 27 April at 04:00 – 06:00 UTC (time converter), see below proposed agenda: Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI 2. Timeline for CCWG Comment on Draft Bylaws - Apr 27th : CCWG ACCT Meeting #92 - May 3rd : CCWG ACCT Meeting #93 - May 10th : Submission 3. Introductory remarks from Holly and Rosemary 4. Q&A 5. [Tentative] ICANN Legal discussion on 1.1 6. AOB Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN-Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

Clarification on PTI scope
by Seun Ojedeji April 24, 2016

April 24, 2016

Dear all, >From my understanding of PTI was that it's going to be the new IANA that will serve the 3OCs (even though numbers and protocols contracts with ICANN). If my high-level understanding above is right, then i think there may be something wrong in the fy17 draft budget which has just been brought to my attention. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05m… Page 25 item 4 says the following: PTI- New legal entity, destined to host activities and costs of the IANA functions in service of the *Names community* Then page 27 seem to imply that PTI will indeed serve the names alone. At the moment, I have not considered the application of this new arrangement and unless I am missing something, I don't think this was what was proposed. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

5 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal
by Seun Ojedeji April 22, 2016

April 22, 2016

Hi Jonathan, Just a very minor clarifying question (which you or legal could answer); did legal revert because they now confirm lack of ambiguity in the text? That said, I have no problem about the text reverted to but their response to my question could make a difference. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 Apr 2016 09:58, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: All, Please note the response from Sharon Flanagan below. Jonathan *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] *Sent:* 20 April 2016 14:43 *To:* 'jrobinson(a)afilias.info' <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>; ' maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl' <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>; 'gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com' < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> *Cc:* 'cwg-client(a)icann.org' <cwg-client(a)icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal We reverted to the language of the CWG proposal which covered all three: mission, role and purpose. Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP SF tel: 415-772-1271 PA tel: 650-565-7008 Email: sflanagan(a)sidley.com *From*: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>] *Sent*: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 04:40 AM *To*: Flanagan, Sharon; 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> *Cc*: 'Client Committee' <cwg-client(a)icann.org> *Subject*: RE: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Hello Sharon, Please could you confirm the resolution of the point: “We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. ” Thank-you, Jonathan *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>] *Sent:* 18 April 2016 18:26 *To:* 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> *Cc:* Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Thanks for the input. We will propose back that the original wording of the CWG proposal be retained. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON R. FLANAGAN* *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*+1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com *From:* Maarten Simon [mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>] *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 12:45 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Flanagan, Sharon *Cc:* Client Committee *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal I tend to agree with Greg that as the sentence ends with ‘or other matters of concern to the community’ it is not an issue to use the text as is in the proposal including ‘ purpose’ and ‘role’ although these are not (formally) defined. I therefore support his alternative 1. *From: *<cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> *Date: *Saturday 16 April 2016 at 18:33 *To: *Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> *Cc: *"cwg-client(a)icann.org" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Since this is an open ended list (ending with "or other matters of concern to the community."), i don't think there's a big issue with including "purpose" and "role". However, I do think these terms are different in nature from the defined Mission, and from each other. Purpose can be traced back to, and is essentially defined in Article 2 of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation; as such, it is similar to Mission in specificity. Role on the other hand is completely ambiguous and undefined. Alternatives may be: 1. Leave as is -- ambiguity and all (but to my mind only "role" is ambiguous). 2. Move role elsewhere in the list, without reference to the Articles and Bylaws -- however, this makes it even more ambiguous (as currently drafted, it's at least clear that the "role" needs to be derived from the Articles and Bylaws in some fashion. 3. Eliminate "role" entirely -- but we then run the risk of losing a point that was being made by the CWG, since Role has a different connotation than Mission or Purpose, and has more to do with how the Mission and Purpose are carried out. Greg On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> wrote: Dear All, There is language in the CWG proposal at paragraph 106 regarding budget approvals that refers to: “The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community.” We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. The concern is that “purpose” and “role” are otherwise ambiguous and not defined, whereas the Mission is carefully articulated. Thanks, Sharon *SHARON R. FLANAGAN* *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com *[image: SIDLEY]* **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Draft ICANN Bylaws Draft of April 20, 2016: CCWG=Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Certifications
by Grace Abuhamad April 22, 2016

April 22, 2016

Forwarding on behalf of the Chairs for Sharon Flanagan. From: <bylaws-coord-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Holly Gregory <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:29 PM To: "'leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx'" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu>, Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Subject: [bylaws-coord] Draft ICANN Bylaws Draft of April 20, 2016: CCWG=Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Certifications CCWG Accountability April 20, 2016 Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin CWG-Stewardship April 20, 2016 Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com 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. ****************************************************************************************************

3 3

IOTF Call #6 - Meeting Notes (20 April 2016 @ 19:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Dear members of the CWG Stewardship, Below, please find the meeting notes from the IOTF Call #6. The presentation material, transcript, and audio recordings are now posted at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under "Meetings & Work Sessions" section. Unfortunately due to technical issue, the AdobeConnect room recording was not completed though the recording was started at the beginning of the call. We are working with IT to identify the issue to avoid this from happening on the future calls. My apology for this inconvenience. ***Meeting Notes*** Implementation Oversight Task Force (ITOF) call #6 20 April 2016 @ 19:00 UTC Please note that this meeting is being recorded. To mute or Unmute, select *6 (Star-Six) If you would like to review the last call(s), the recordings and presentation materials are posted publicly here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Items PTI Formation Document Review process IANA Escalation Mechanisms 3. AOB Paul Kane's question RZMA question 4. Closing Remarks Notes: PTI Formation documents are: - Bylaws - Articles of Incorporation - Conflict of Interest Policy Action Items: - Share Document Review Process & Timeline slide with Client Committee to discuss their involvement and Sidley's. (ICANN) - Share PTI formation documents term sheets with Client Committee (and potentially with Sidley). (ICANN) - IANA CS Complaint Resolution Process - is the CEO step no longer part of the process? Chuck will look into the question raised and get back to this group via the email list. (Chuck Gomes) - IANA Problem Resolution Process - Annex J - Flowchart 1 and 3 have the same title but one swimlane different. Chuck will look into it and get back to this group via the email list. (Chuck Gomes) - Section 7 & 8 of annex C: could be included in the ICANN Bylaws, PTI bylaws or in the ICANN-PTI contract. ICANN to flag this item with lawyers to make sure it gets included. (ICANN) - Share the rough timeline of implementation item documents during the next call (ICANN) - Review the ICANN Bylaws for the mentioning of the ICANN-PTI contract (ICANN) ***Chat History*** James Gannon: Will we have audio in the AC room for the call? James Gannon: Yup can hear Lise Fuhr: Good evening Chuck Gomes: I am 3200. Allan MacGillivray: Tht's me at 5335 Paul Kane: To be clear there will there be PTI Bylaws as it is a seperate affilaite company Paul Kane: ? Alissa Cooper: What section of the bylaws will the PTI Purpose be drawn from? Jonathan Robinson: Apologeis for late arrival Jonathan Robinson: Had a minor IT glitch Nathalie Vergnolle: Yes, there will be separate PTI bylaws Paul Kane: Thanks Nathalie Yuko Green: @Alissa, that would be are covered in Section 16.2 and Annex D (Articles 1 &2). Lise Fuhr: Thank you Trang Yuko Green: @Alissa, the language was circulated via IOTF mail on 15 April Alissa Cooper: ok, thanks, will find it matthew shears: + 1 Paul on PTI bylaws Paul Kane: Agree Trang Paul Kane: This group is here to help you get it right then it needs ratification by the groups CWG/SO etc matthew shears: agree bylaws and AoI should go to Sidley matthew shears: + 1 Chuck Paul Kane: Chuck agree Greg Shatan: With my clilent committee hat on, I'm happy to step in to the review at that point, suggeted by Chuck. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree totally Jonathan Jonathan Robinson: Reminder of the role of client committee. Not a committee to take decisions but to facilitate effective interaction with the lawyers to ensure that we use them efficiently / cost-effectively. Lise Fuhr: @Jonathan agree Avri Doria: wasn't this the CSC group. matthew shears: seems unusual that it would go to GDD James Gannon: Agree Matt Donna Austin, Neustar: @Avri, wasn't what the CSC group? matthew shears: PTYI BOard is not on the escalation path in the slide Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): hmmm matthew shears: PTI Board would come after the IANA functions manager as the IANA functions manager is on the PTI Board if I recall correctly Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that resonates Matthrw Donna Austin, Neustar: This is for individual complaints Jonathan Robinson: What does the reference CWG 1367 mean? Paul Kane: How long wil this take? If there is a problem there needs to be a quick fix ..... Avri Doria: i guess i am missing the problem here. this seems to accurately reflect stage 1. Avri Doria: i do not think it was an omission James Gannon: Its actually para 367 in our proosal Johnathan James Gannon: *proposal Avri Doria: 1367 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): the proposed Yuko Green: 1367 refers to the paragraph number from ICG proposal Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Yuko. I was looking for the reference in the original CWG proposal matthew shears: If this is for individuals the proposed escalation path on the screen makes sense matthew shears: (not the current one) Paul Kane: Today there is GDD - but tomorrow there will be PTI Board Yuko Green: @jonathan, that would be paragraph 367 from CWG proposal Jonathan Robinson: Thank-you Yukp Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Avri thus the *proposed* Alan Greenberg: I have no problem with the ICANN CEO being removed. Was just curious that it was there today. Paul Kane: Agree Avri .... no longer there Donna Austin, Neustar: @Alan - I think it is at the complainant's discretion to take their complaint to the ICANN President & CEO, something anyone can do, not just as it relates to IANA Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): THX Chuck matthew shears: + 1 Avri and + 1 Paul on speed and efficiency Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Donna Paul Kane: Donna - redelegation will (likely) be settled in Court - but technical operations need to involve The Managemnt of PTI- ie the Board Avri Doria: agree with Donna and that is a reasonable option James Gannon: Yes for emercengy technical issues there is the 24x7 escalation process Avri Doria: i think the right hand table corresponds to what we included in the plan. James Gannon: +1 Avri Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): YUP Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the short answer to Trang's quesiton is there was no oversight. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I will say again *the proposal* Allan MacGillivray: +1 Jonathan on agreeing to the current CWG proposal (right hand chart) and moving on. The IANA Functions Manager can always discuss this with the CEO. So, let's move on. Avri Doria: while the PRI may be a service provider to GDD, i did not think the IFPM would be a report of the GDD president except in so far as the GDD prez is on PTI board. Avri Doria: ... PTI ... Avri Doria: they wanted to be sure there was no oversight. good due dillgence. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Alan, it was an example Donna Austin, Neustar: a bad one, but just an example. Paul Kane: ccTLD are not ICANN - they are local and IANA confirm local and report to ICANN Alan Greenberg: @Donna, yes, but one that I tdon't think is possible, so was curious if I was missing something. Alan Greenberg: @Paul, yes, but ultimately IANA only takes action after action of the ICANN Board - today. Alan Greenberg: ICANN Boardpresumably verifying that local issues meet RFC Donna Austin, Neustar: @Alan, I was looking for examples at short notice and used a bad one. Paul Kane: ICANN verify that the ransfer is correct (ie Registrants have been safely transferred) - ie stability of the ccTLD users Paul Kane: Secure and stability of the DNS ..... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Alan reefer back nee to the FOI for Delegations lokking to both RFC 1591 and the GAC Priciples relsting to Delegations Alan Greenberg: @Donna :-) Paul Kane: Bylaws... makes most sense... Thanks James Gannon: Para 264 for refernce Paul Kane: Thanks Trang Donna Austin, Neustar: I have to drop from the call. thanks all Alissa Cooper: I have a different question to ask under AOB, if we have time Lise Fuhr: I have to leave at the top of the hour Paul Kane: Note taker - It is ICANN Bylaws and also PTI bylaws matthew shears: + 1 Alissa - both sets of bylaws are key Yuko Green: @Paul, thank you Paul Kane: THanks .... Yuko ( remove Either) Paul Kane: Thasnk Yuko Green: Thank you Paul James Gannon: I dont think that the CCWG would provide much control over ICANNs ability to create and modify contracts Alissa Cooper: it is currently referenced in 1.1(d), but not for the effect that Chuck was describing James Gannon: Unless the wording was places directly into the bylaws and not just a reference James Gannon: +1 Paul James Gannon: Yes that it being done in other areas Paul Kane: Thanks all James Gannon: thanks all Jonathan Robinson: Thank-you Trang Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thnks everyone...Bye Greg Shatan: Bye all! 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

Draft New ICANN Bylaws Posted for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad April 21, 2016

April 21, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-21-en Draft New ICANN Bylaws Posted for 30-day Public Comment Now that the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) proposals have been transmitted to NTIA, one of the key implementation planning items is to amend the ICANN Bylaws to reflect the recommendations in those Proposals. The proposed draft of the New ICANN Bylaws was developed collaboratively by the ICANN legal team and the independent counsel hired to advise the CCWG-Accountability and the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). In developing the Draft New ICANN Bylaws, the attorneys consulted a Bylaws Coordination Group populated with both community and Board members, as well as with the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Both the independent counsel to the community groups and ICANN's General Counsel have confirmed that the Draft New ICANN Bylaws are consistent with the community proposals relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. These proposed draft Bylaws, are out for a 30-day public comment from 21 April – 21 May to allow any interested party to review and provide feedback. This timeline allows for comments to be analyzed and incorporated in time for a tentative 27 May adoption of the Bylaws by the ICANN Board. NTIA has stated that it needs to see that changes to the Bylaws have been adopted sufficient to implement the Transition Proposals before NTIA can complete its review of the Transition Proposals. This public comment period is designed to meet that deadline. Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en

1 0