May 2016 - CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

FW: [client com] FW: PTI Articles and Bylaws
by Jonathan Robinson May 25, 2016

May 25, 2016

All, Please be aware of the latest feedback / input from Sidley on the PTI formation documents. Jonathan (on behalf of the Client Committee) From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 24 May 2016 07:51 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] FW: PTI Articles and Bylaws Dear Client Committee, Attached are our comments to the draft PTI articles and bylaws (redlines are marked against ICANN legal drafts). Please note that we have flagged items for CWG consideration in the notes. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN 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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

FW: Letter from GNSO Council for Bylaws Coordination Group
by Marika Konings May 25, 2016

May 25, 2016

For your information. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 24 May 2016 at 22:12 To: "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: Fwd: Letter from GNSO Council for Bylaws Coordination Group Forwarding at the request of the GNSO. Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:10:57 EDT > To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> > Subject: Letter from GNSO Council for Bylaws Coordination Group > > Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, > > Please find attached for your consideration a letter from the GNSO Council. > > Best regards, > > Marika

1 0

IOTF Call #9 - Meeting Notes (20 MAY 2016 @ 15:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

Dear members of the CWG Stewardship, Below, please find the meeting notes from the IOTF Call #9. 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 #09 20 May 2016 @ 15:00 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 * CSC request for appointment * PTI formation documents 3. AOB a. IANA IPR Timing 4. Closing Remarks Notes: Apology: Lise Fuhr Paul Kane Avri Doria Decisions: RZERC Charter * Title: Incorporate the edits to spell out RZERC * Composition: Incorporate edits to first sentence * Composition: Remove last added sentence, but take the edit of first sentence suggested by Seun (Comment [A5]) * Meeting: Incorporate the edits of "Meetings may take place with remote participation (using appropriate technology) or in-person. Email discussions do not constitute meetings." * Voting & Quorum: Incorporate Chuck's suggestion (Comment [A8]) * Voting & Quorum: Change the title of the section to "Decisions" * Voting & Quorum: Do not take the suggested edits by Eduard (Comment [A9]) * Records of Proceedings: Incorporate suggested language by Jonathan "Committee meetings shall be recorded wherever possible. Any minutes or other records prepared shall be posted as soon as possible following approval by the committee." * Conflict of Interest: Change "confirm adherence" to "identify potential conflicts of interest in their committee service." * Review: Incorporate the edit suggested by Seun (Comment [A14]) Action Items: * Update the RZERC term sheet based on the feedback and change the format into a charter (ICANN) * Share the CSC materials with CWG (ICANN) * Contact client committee about review timing for PTI formation document (ICANN) * Check with ICANN legal & finance regarding the evaluation of IANA IPR (ICANN) ***Chat History*** Yuko Green: Who may be #1037? Jonathan Robinson: I am live on audio. Jonathan Robinson: Hello all Yuko Green: Hello everybody, welcome to IOTF Call #9. We will get started shortly. Yuko Green: who may be # 8753? Greg Shatan: An interest does not necessarily imply a conflict of interest. If it did, ICANN couldn't function. James Gannon: Agree Greg Shatan: Agree that we should not take Seun's edit. matthew shears: if the appointment of membrs is up to internal processes then why specifiy 5 years Russ Housley: I can barely hear Jonathan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yup keep the erspective here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the GNSO Guidelines for WG Guidelines has a set of agreed definitions of Consensus we could reference Greg Shatan: I won't die in a ditch over this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup James Gannon: If it has a meeting over VOIP is that not a meeting? Support removing it matthew shears: why even specify just say electronically or face to face. Greg Shatan: "internet based discussions" is a very vague term. Alissa Cooper: agree matthew James Gannon: Agree with matt Greg Shatan: Let's remember this is only a term sheet.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Excellent Jonethn! Alissa Cooper: is anyone really liable to confuse email for a meeting? James Gannon: Simplify Greg Shatan: That last sentence is rather silly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): One wuld hope Not Alissa Jonathan Robinson: Meetings may take place with remote participation (using appropriate technology) or in-person. Email discussions do not consititue meetings. James Gannon: +1 Johantahn language Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yep Alissa Cooper: looks good Greg Shatan: +1 to James's spelling of "Jonathan." Chuck Gomes: Well done Jonathan. James Gannon: Working 3 laptops and 2 meeting Greg, Im surprised I didint call him Jane =) James Gannon: Support Yuko Green: Cheryl, may i suggest you mute your audio? James Gannon: Too much detail and not in proposal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree with Alan James Gannon: Title it decision making Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Faire enough point Greg Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and yes Decision Making works James Chuck Gomes: Concensus and voting don't match. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): YES TO Decisions and no Quorum in title Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lests KISS this Yes Alan James Gannon: Agree Russ Housley: Agree, that it too much granularity Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Russ James Gannon: As soon as possible following approval is pretty standard boilerplate, I suggest just leaving as normal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): YUP matthew shears: agree Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): ONE WOULD THIK SO Chuck but that would be covered in just oopenly and transparently James Gannon: Yup that would work Greg Shatan: +1 Alan Greg Shatan: "other records" covers recordings, minutes, transcripts, courtroom artwork, etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Any Munites prepared should be .. ... ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that was an edit to Jonethans language Jonathan Robinson: Committee meetings shall be recorded whereever possible. Any minutes or other records prepared shall be posted as soon as possible following approval by the committee. matthew shears: + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Perfect Jonathan Yuko Green: Thank you for typing that up, Jonathan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): fine Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): doubt it adds anything but nit dying in a ditch either Russ Housley: Where will the final RZERC Charter be posted? Chuck Gomes: I understood that a charter would be created from the term sheet. Chuck Gomes: But I am okay just having a term sheet. Chuck Gomes: Should we call it RZERC Guidelines? matthew shears: it is a review committee - and it does have an important role - shouldn't it have a charter Greg Shatan: The AC/SOs are essentially "chartered" in the ICANN Bylaws, and then make their own rules. WGs are chartered and follow rules generally set for them. Alan Greenberg: I am happy to do whatever other want as long as it will not take a lot more of our time. Greg Shatan: Will it at least be written in complete sentences? matthew shears: + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fine plan Trang Greg Shatan: Please use the word "Whereas" at least once, just to satisy my legalistic urges. Thank you. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Gre !;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): GreG Trang Nguyen: @Greg: noted James Gannon: no objection here Chuck Gomes: I reviewed it and had no issues. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup fine to issue IMO James Gannon: I honestly havent had time to review yet was planning to over the weekend James Gannon: Day jobs and all that =) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense Trang Russ Housley: I cannot hear anyone speaking right now James Gannon: Agree, I will note that from my design team persective I saw references to our C7.3 sections so happy from that sense Russ Housley: You are back .... Russ Housley: I think thet the RIRs proposal requires the IPR be transferred before the NTIA exits Russ Housley: @Greg: I think the timeline requires parallel review Greg Shatan: @Russ, agree and that is how we're proceeding. James Gannon: Hmm valutation of the assets needs to be done very carefully Russ Housley: The concept of a valuation is new to me. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL James Gannon: Thi is not a normal business transcation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): TRUE Alissa Cooper: this seems like something icann could decide to do any time before the transfer James Gannon: Yes but in those cases its normal to value at 1$ or equivalent Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes could be done Now Jonathan Robinson: I am not an expert on this. Suggest Trang checks with ICANN fincance / legal Chuck Gomes: Agree Jonathan. Greg Shatan: James -- that is price -- value is a different issue. Chuck Gomes: Thanks all. Productive meeting James Gannon: Thanks all James Gannon: Agree Greg btw Greg Shatan: It used to be a peppercorn rather than $1... James Gannon: lol Greg Shatan: Bye all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): byr Trang Nguyen: Bye everyone. Thank you. matthew shears: as long as it does not inolve congressional approval 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

FW: [IOTF] Draft PTI formation documents and naming function contract section headers
by Lise Fuhr May 16, 2016

May 16, 2016

Dear All, Please see below the email from Trang and the implementation team regarding the PTI draft documents and Contact sections headers. We will get back to you with information about the further process. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise From: iotf-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen Sent: 14 May 2016 00:34 To: iotf(a)icann.org Cc: Samantha Eisner Subject: [IOTF] Draft PTI formation documents and naming function contract section headers Dear IOTF members, Attached are the draft PTI Bylaws and articles of incorporation. We are also attaching the section headers of the naming function contract. These documents are being circulated for your review and feedback. These documents will also be circulated to the client committee so that the committee can direct Sidley's review. To assist with your review of the PTI Bylaws and articles of incorporation, we are also attaching the table that provides ICANN's comments to Sidley's notes. Also for your reference, we are also attaching a slide that shows the 4 contracts/agreements that ICANN will have with PTI. We have slated 2 weeks for review and update of these documents. We ask that you provide incremental feedback as you review the documents so that we can consider and update the documents as early as possible during this 2-week review period. Warm regards, Trang

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #79 - 12 May 2016
by Brenda Brewer May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #79 on 12 May will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/UDyAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share comments / feedback on the mailing list. * Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in relation to where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should be best captured (contract or Bylaws). * Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship and IOTF input. * Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract once available * Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements * Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed changes to implementation staff. Input to be received by 17 May at the latest. * Action item #7 - CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and role of RZERC with other operational communities for their information. Notes 1. Opening remarks * IOTF and Client Committee have been meeting - their work needs to be brought back to the CWG-Stewardship to make sure there is syncronisation 2. Implementation Update * See slides presented during the meeting * What is the plan & process between 21 May (end of comment period) and next step (Board consideration)? Theresa will be sending out an email later today what occurs between 21 May and Board consideration on 27 May. Will summary of comments be provided and will feedback from CWG-Stewardship be solicited? At minimum, comments that would require changes or updates, those would be co-ordinated with the Bylaw co-ordination group. CWG-Stewardship is represented in that group and the assumption is there would be reporting back from that co-ordination group. * What is the status of paper on secondment to better understand rationale as well as money flow? Paper has not been shared yet - still addressing one issue with ICANN HR. As soon as that has been addressed it will be shared with the IOTF. Aim is to circulate it together with the other PTI related documents that are in development. * IOTF is expected to confirm whether proposed implementation is conform the intent of the recommendations. Needs to remain vigilant to ensure that implementation meets the intent of the recommendations. * Concerns were expressed in Marrakesh about what was being proposed - until we see those documents, CWG-Stewardship will not know whether those concerns have been addressed. Needs to be able to review and respond and able to deal with any concerns. * PTI needs to be self-sufficient - separability is part of the proposal. Need to know what end-game is, in case of separation in case of secondment of employees. Discussed before - not a given that staff would move with the function if the performance had been so bad that separation had become a reality. * Primary question is whether staff will want to go to PTI if they are not seconded. * Need to make sure to understand the motivation and perspective on secondment. What are the terms and conditions of those secondments and how does that impact on the way that PTI was devised from basic day to day to eventual separation. 3. Legal Issues / Client Committee Update PTI Formation Documents * See document circulated - Sidley has requested input from CWG-Stewardship on number of occasions. * Consider preparing a series of answers and work through these with the CWG-Stewardship. * #15 - Chair (Director) selected by ICANN - not a foregone conclusion that the chair would be selected by ICANN. Chair/Officer is an unusual officer to see in corporate formations. Understood as chair to be selected from 5 Board members but would be good to clarify. * Limited remit exists with regards to ccTLDs. Perception that parent - child relationship can be changed easily. Need better understanding why it is not prudent to capture related annexes C, 7 and 8 from CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal in the Bylaws. May require special session of the client committee. * Consider whether there are any volunteers to develop draft responses to the Sidley comments or whether to ask the IOTF. Leave it open to CWG-Stewardship to comment - staff to capture the comments and progress responses through IOTF. Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share comments / feedback on the mailing list. Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in relation to where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should be best captured (contract or Bylaws). Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship and IOTF input. ICANN-PTI Contract * In the pipeline, not received yet. Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract once available IANA IPR * See Proposed Principle Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements circulated by Greg * Proposal to send draft for review by to Sidley - other communities have also asked their legal counsel to review. Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements 4. CSC Charter Reviews and RZERC * See slides - update on CSC work * RZERC - draft charter was circulated with resulted in substantial discussion on the list. Key changes need to be identified, if any are to be made. Not clear what words in the draft charter are considered offensive and have been objected to on the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship looked at NTIA Authorization role. Focus of discussion has been on whether RZERC also covers operational changes from other operational communities. Not clear what needs to be changed as charter does seem to imply it is only focused on naming related changes. Other communities appear to be fine with RZERC to not get involved in any changes that relate to changes associated to the other communities. RZERC provides input does not have authority - authority lies with the ICANN Board. RZERC provides expert and technical input on changes proposed or propose changes that are deemed appropriate. The contracts/MOUs with other other operational communities and ICANN have not yet been written - perhaps this concern should be addressed therein if those operational communities so wish? * Does ICANN need this function for the work to be done by other operational communities? Board would need external vetting of the proposed changes, whether it is from RZERC or something like RZERC. * Consider renaming RZERC to allow it to be more general than just rootzone? * Make sure RZERC is fit for purpose for naming related aspects, but make sure it is inclusive so that other communities could join if they would want to. Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed changes to implementation staff. Input to be received by 17 May at the latest. Action item #7 - CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and role of RZERC with other operational communities for their information. 5. Project Cost Support Team (PCST) Update * CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship incurred significant costs as part of its work. Board engaged in conversations with Chairs and SO/AC leadership which resulted in the formation of PCST. Primary job is to report and assist with the controlling of costs. Preliminary report seen by chairs - not clear yet whether it is to be shared. Discussed with co-chairs of CCWG-Accountability. Intend to provide feedback to the authors & Board Finance committee. Primary concern is that process appears to expect a degree of control over costs by the co-chairs without clear mechanics for being able to do so. 6. Closing Remarks

2 1

IOTF Call #8 - Meeting Notes (10 MAY 2016 @ 21:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Dear members of the CWG Stewardship, Below, please find the meeting notes from the IOTF Call #8. 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 #8 10 May 2016 @ 21:00 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 * IANA Escalation Mechanism: Obtain final agreement from IOTF * CSC Updates: Updates from Donna Austin * Document Review Process & Timeline 3. AOB * Scheduling (Jonathan) * Request for update session @ ICANN 56 (Trang) * RZERC (Alan) * Statitics gathering for SLEs (Paul) 4. Closing Remarks Notes: Audio Only: James Gannon Cheryl Langdon-Orr Decisions: * Escalation mechanism: group agreed the escalation mechanism matter closed, will be reflected in the decision log. * Doodle polls will be sent out 2 weeks out for scheduling of next call. Action Items: * Share revised PTI timeline with IOTF * ICANN to confirm if ICANN can provide a response to Sidley's comments on heads of terms of PTI formation documents. * Continue discussions on document review process with IOTF and CWG. ***Chat History*** Yuko Green: Hello everybody, welcome to the IOTF call #8 Yuko Green: We will get started at the top of the hour Lise Fuhr: Hi Trang I am in the US now - is there a free phone number I can use here? Lise Fuhr: Sorry hi Yuko Yuko Green: Hi Lise, that would be 1-719-234-7872 Yuko Green: USA /Canada (toll free) 1-866-546-3377 Lise Fuhr: OK Will try Lise Fuhr: Succes Lise Fuhr: 1944 is me James Gannon: Hi All, I am on listen only for this call unfortunately Trang Nguyen: Hi Lise. I see that Yuko provided you with the U.S. phone number. Trang Nguyen: Hello everyone Yuko Green: @Lise: Thank you for the information Lise Fuhr: Yes thank you I am well taken care of Jonathan Robinson: Hello all. I am not in the US so a little late in UK! James Gannon: I agree Johnathan =) Lise Fuhr: I am jetlagged so late for me too in a sense Jonathan Robinson: Lise & me were part of the problem last week so Trang should not shoulder all the responsibility. Apologies. James Gannon: I have to say a week makes it a little hard to schedule, but thats likely just me =) Lise Fuhr: I agree with Jonathan - we are to blame for that. Yuko Green: Who may be a phone # 1108? Lise Fuhr: And apologies from me too Paul Kane: Agree Paul Kane: The issue was for ccTLDs some of whom explicitly agree to follow ICANN Policy - whereas non-ccNSO ccTLDs have no such obligation/impact by ICANN. Paul Kane: I think it covered but I wanted time for sign-off - so thanks again for the additional time Yuko Green: who may be phone number 6000? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thanks Donna Yuko Green: @Donna: Thank you for the update James Gannon: Is there a reason it wouldnt be called IANA? Donna Austin, Neustar: Good question James, at what point do we drop 'post transition' James Gannon: Yup and given the transfer iof the IANA IP I think it only makes sense Russ Housley: It might require an additional license since the IANA IP is being transfered to the IETF Trust Alan Greenberg 2: I have an AOB regarding the RZERC. Trang Nguyen: got it, Alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): audio Greg Shatan: Sorry to be late.... Yuko Green: @Greg: Hello Greg, thank you for joining us Paul Kane: Will do Paul Kane: It is to PROTECT ICANN as much as anything Paul Kane: sure Paul Kane: It is a mindset outset of the Western mindset Paul Kane: Much more articulate Greg ... You understand my point - it is diplomacy :-) Paul Kane: Exactly .... Greg Shatan: For any lawyer, give me an objective and I'll tell you how to accomplish it, if possible. So the real trick is identifying the objective. Advice that is "right" for one objective may not be right when you add other objectives to the mix. James Gannon: I thought we had agreed on that in previous meetings Greg Shatan: Paul, it's always a pleasure to agree with you... :-) James Gannon: With the 6 point slide James Gannon: +1 James Gannon: 2 weeks would be a big improvement ffrom my side James Gannon: I can make sure i have time the James Gannon: n Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): te more advsnce notice for my calendar the better for me Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 2 weeks is better than 1 IMO James Gannon: Yeah agree 2 weeks is a good balance i htink Lise Fuhr: Perfect Russ Housley: 2 weeks would be better than one Yuko Green: All, I will be sending out another doodle poll for the week of 23 May sooon so we will have next week and the following week schedule set this week James Gannon: COuld we maybe meet over a luch if nessesary? James Gannon: Donna ca u help with this from GNSO? James Gannon: (Sorry no mic) Avri Doria: does not look like a y of the cross community sessions are opne James Gannon: Yeah I think thta fair Donna Austin, Neustar: @Avri, not sure what you mean, can you explain? Avri Doria: ignore me. James Gannon: I think some of this maybe that not all of us realsied how extensive the RZERC mandate is Avri Doria: whatever info i thought i had, i dont really have, so had no business saying anything. James Gannon: I thought it was much more advisrory than directly making non binding decisions Paul Kane: Thanks Alan Chuck Gomes: It is advisory James. Paul Kane: Why not ask the other groups Lise Fuhr: No it will be discussed on Thursday James Gannon: Ok that makes me feel better Chuck, I think that some of the wording on the list has made some of us a bit worried Avri Doria: Andrew Paul Kane: Yes - thanks Avri Paul Kane: DNSSEC was the last big update Paul Kane: Curve may be the next Paul Kane: Next call is fine Paul Kane: Thanks Trang Lise Fuhr: Good bye all - I have to leave now. Thank you all James Gannon: Thanks again to everyone Chuck Gomes: Thanks all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): All good James Gannon: time to sleep Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks everyone Bye for now... Greg Shatan: Bye all Allan MacGillivray: 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

Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements
by Greg Shatan May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

All, I've attached the current draft of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements. This is the "stable" draft which has now been in existence for a few weeks. The other two communities have passed this document on to their counsel for review and comment. The intention is to certify this document to Sidley for review and comment, assuming the CWG approves that action on today's call. In addition to the attached document, two subsequent suggestions were made in the coordination group that prepared this document. The intention is to pass these along to Sidley as well. The suggestions, and my reactions, are set out below. First in the bit about the registration rules for iana.org and friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're talking about are status values in the shared registration system -- clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and clientTransferProhibited. I think this is just a clarification, and no big deal. >Agree. A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting, and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other decision-making processes they use. A suggestion in the room was that the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of the communities must be present for quorum. I think this is a good principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no making up rules when a decision is needed). Does anyone object? Does it seem reasonable? >Overall, this seems sensible. On CCG procedures, we may want to have a "charter" for the group, although there may be other ways to ensure that rules are in place. As such, how we put those rules in place should be kept general (i.e., not so specific as 'publish at its first meeting'). However, the point on quorum is one where we might want to be specific now -- this echoes discussions we've been having about quorum and decisions making in the CSC oversight group for IANA functions. I think a majority with at least one rep from each community is a pretty reasonable "floor" for quorum requirements and one I have no trouble supporting at this point. Of course, this and many other details will get resolved when we move from this "term sheet" stage to "definitive documentation." What's most important now is to keep moving toward that stage. Greg

1 0

FW: [client com] PTI Formation Documents - Sidley Review (May 6, 2016)
by Jonathan Robinson May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

FYI From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 07 May 2016 06:05 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Formation Documents - Sidley Review (May 6, 2016) Dear all, Attached is an annotated version of the PTI governance documents term sheet that was prepared by ICANN. We have added columns to reflect any corresponding provision of the CWG proposal, as well as our comments. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN 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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2)
by Grace Abuhamad May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update… IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) Previous update (27 April 2016) Root Zone Management The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root Zone Management 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: It has been one month since the start of the parallel testing period and everything continues to go smoothly. Click here to view Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports of all the root zone files generated. In addition to Verisign’s daily reports, ICANN has posted the first of three Monthly Reports on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress during the testing period. The report is available on ICANN’s dedicated Parallel Testing landing page. 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: Monthly Report on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports Mailing list: None. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) Status update: Discussions between ICANN and Verisign to finalize details of the RZMA are continuing. The two parties have coalesced around many key elements of the agreement and hope to have a final draft by the end of the month. Once the draft RZMA is finalized it will be made publicly available on icann.org. 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). Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Status update: ICANN has been working with the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) on various activities relating to the PTI. Summaries of PTI formation documents (Bylaws, articles of incorporation) as well as the conflict of interest policy have been shared with the IOTF. ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the process and timing of review for these documents as well as for the ICANN-PTI contracts. Documents/announcements posted this week: None. Mailing list(s): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Status update: In the CWG-Stewardship proposal, the Domain Names community recommended that a CSC be formed to replace NTIA’s role as it relates to monitoring performance of the IANA naming function. The composition of the CSC will include members and liaisons from all ICANN Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). A Request for Appointment is expected to be sent to SOs and ACs this month to appoint members and liaisons to the CSC using their internal processes. Documents/announcements posted this week: None. Mailing list(s): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Status update: The RZERC Charter (v4) was circulated to the CWG-Stewardship on 4 May 2016. The CWG-Stewardship will discuss the Charter on their 12 May 2016 call, and members and participants of the group are encouraged to provide any comment by 23:59 UTC on 17 May 2016. Following analysis and incorporation of any input received from the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN will post the Charter for a 30-day public comment period. Documents/announcements: Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v4) Mailing list(s): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ 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 ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). ICANN's Bylaws Status update: ICANN and the community are in the middle of a 30-day public comment period on the new draft ICANNBylaws. Any interested party can submit comments to the public comment forum until 23:59 UTC on 21 May 2016. Public Comment Page Submit Comment to Forum Comments Forum 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 so they can complete their anticipated 90-day review of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. Documents/announcements: Draft New ICANN Bylaws 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

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

At 09/05/2016 11:31 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > > However, as far as I know, to date there has never been a > discussion about it, > > and in my mind, there MUST be an authorization function in place for all > > significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition. > >Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if >you specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times. I meant IANA, implying all IANA functions. > > an authorization function in place for all > > significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition. > >This strikes me as a massive overstatement of what was intended. >PTI will be in charge of names-IANA operations. It can change its >operations at will as long as it performs the functions its >customers want it to perform efficiently and effectively. The >Standing committee will continually monitor and review its >operations and it will be subject to IFRs. The NTIA currently approves changes BEFORE they go into effect. DT-F was charged with deciding if such prior authorization was required and if so how to do it. The group decided that prior authorization WAS required for some classes of changes (and removed the need to authorization for others). The CWG approved that recommendation. Are you now suggesting that even if you believe that the RZERC is only for names, that we re-write the CWG report? >The "significant changes" this committee was supposed to be >concerned with were those that went beyond names-IANA operations and >involved a need to coordinate with a number of other players: the >RZM, the root server operators, perhaps other IFOs. > >I agree with Chuck that this committee was never intended to >"approve" or "authorize" anything the way that NTIA "authorized" >root zone file changes. It was intended to provide a platform for >cooperation and coordination around major re-configurations of NAMES >root zone process. The committee does not authorize. That task was given to the ICANN Board. Unrelated to the Board's responsibility for names policy. It simply seemed a good senior people to anoint with the responsibility. I do not recall and objections to this in DT-F or the CWG. Alan

7 11