June 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Root Zone Management Transition Update: Preservation of Security, Stability and Resiliency
by Grace Abuhamad June 28, 2016

June 28, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/root-zone-management-transition-update-pres… Root Zone Management Transition Update: Preservation of Security, Stability and Resiliency On March 4, 2015, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) officially requested that ICANN and Verisign work together to develop a proposal on how best to transition theNTIA administrative role associated with root zone management in a manner that maintains the security and stability of the Internet’s domain name system. NTIA previously announced that the transition of this aspect of its administrative role was a process separate from but parallel to the IANA stewardship transition. Verisign and ICANN submitted a proposal to NTIA that contained two primary elements. First, the teams would build and test a parallel root zone management system that would simulate root zone management functions without NTIA’s current authorization role. That system is now approaching the completion of its 90-day defect free testing phase. Second, in anticipation of the release of Verisign from root zone management obligations by NTIA under the Cooperative Agreement, the teams began work on a commercial agreement between ICANN and Verisign for the continued performance of root zone management functions. We are pleased to announce that ICANN and Verisign have completed the discussions and negotiations for the root zone maintainer services agreement (RZMA). Since the early days of the Internet, Verisign has been providing “registration services” under its Cooperative Agreement with NTIA, which was broadly defined to include root zone management functions and Top Level Domain registry services. NTIA recognized that root zone management aspects of the IANA functions contract are “inextricably intertwined” with the Cooperative Agreement. Given the unified nature of the present Cooperative Agreement, much of the root zone infrastructure itself is “inextricably intertwined” with Verisign’s TLD operations for .com: the servers that provide root services are hosted at every .com resolution site (over 100 locations). These servers share bandwidth, routing and monitoring with the .com operations, and the servers use the same code base as the .com TLDname servers and are operated and maintained by the same operation and engineering group. On the provisioning side, the root zone’s provisioning system is derived from the .com Shared Registration System (SRS), using the structure, schema, and software used for .com provisioning operations. Verisign builds and signs the root zone today using the same cryptographic facilities used for .com as well as signing software derived from that used for signing .com. Importantly, Verisign’s root zone operations are also within the .com’s Denial of Service attack detection and mitigation framework including independent internal and external monitoring and packet filtering at all layers. A key component of ensuring security of the root operations was making sure that those operations continued to benefit from its historic association with the .com operations. The RZMA is intended to maintain stable, secure, and reliable operations of the root zone not only for direct root zone management service customers (Registry Operators, Registrars and Root Server Operators), but also to maintain the security and stability of the Internet’s domain name system. This was achieved by a simple extension of the .com Registry Agreement to coincide with the term of the new RZMA. Regarding the RZMA, some of the key features include: · Requiring Verisign and ICANN to work together in good faith to preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone and root zone management system consistent with the security and stability of the Internet. · Detailing ICANN’s responsibility to authenticate, verify, and submit to Verisign changes to the service data comprised in the Root Zone File. · Establishing service level requirements for Verisign to process, edit, generate and publish the Root Zone File, including an accelerated path to update the service data in the Root Zone File in cases of emergency. · Describing ICANN and Verisign’s key-signing obligations, which are to be performed in a secure, transparent and accountable manner. · Providing that the integrity of the service data of the Root Zone File and the Verisign systems performing the root zone maintainer function will be operated under a business continuity plan with the same product support level as maintained by the .com DNS resolution service and .com SRS, respectively. · Setting forth that Verisign will participate as a member of the future Root Zone Evolution Review Committee. · Providing for continuity of the security and stability of the root zone through a one-year transition process which may be initiated by a community driven process under which Verisign continues to perform the root zone maintainer function while ICANN implements a public RFP process to identify and onboard a new provider. · Setting out the development of an emergency transition process for extraordinary events. · Requiring ICANN and Verisign to meet quarterly to prioritize potential changes and updates to the services, including service levels and to prioritize a roadmap for implementation of such changes that may be effected through a built in change control process. What’s left to be done? Soon, we will post the RZMA for public review and the .com registry agreement amendment for public comment, after which our respective boards of directors will be asked to approve the agreements. The .com extension will be sent to NTIA for review and approval according to their processes. -- 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

IANA Transition Implementation Planning Status Update session
by Yuko Green June 27, 2016

June 27, 2016

Dear members of the CWG, As you may know, Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) and ICANN have been working together closely since ICANN 55, Marrakech, on the IANA transition implementation planning. We wanted to provide a status update to the community in Helsinki what work has been done for the last 3 months, and what lies ahead of us. Please join us at the Veranda 1 room from 12:30pm to 1:30pm EEST this Thursday for a quick status update. Please note, the majority of the session will be dedicated to Q&A so the CWG chairs, the IOTF members, and ICANN implementation team could address any feedback or questions community may have. I have sent out the meeting invitation to the whole CWG mail list. For your record, here is the meeting information again: Date: 30 June 2016 Time: 12:30pm - 1:30pm EEST Room: Veranda 1 (Helsinki) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/hel56-veranda1 English Audio Stream (HIGH): http://stream.icann.org:8000/hel56-veranda1-en.m3u English Audio Stream (LOW): http://stream.icann.org:8000/hel56-veranda1-en-lo.m3u We hope to see you and your colleagues this Thursday. Regards, 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] [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
by Seun Ojedeji June 27, 2016

June 27, 2016

Hi Greg, Are you suggesting that chairmanship is restricted to nomcom because they are independent and independent is a requirement for that position, which the other board members(excluding the president) doesn't have? To put this in practice since you say it's general company standard, does this mean an SO/AC ICANN board appointee cannot be the ICANN board chair? So far, beyond Chuck's comment I really don't think my reservations is really addressed which is making me draw unnecessary assumptions. I will like to request that my suggested update be applied otherwise I am willing to hear why it shouldn't. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 27 Jun 2016 10:06, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It's not that they are "superior" but the NomCom nominated people are > "independent" directors (in this case, not nominated by ICANN). This is a > very standard category of directors, across all types of corporations (at > least in the U.S.). > > Greg > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: > >> I agree with Chuck. Also, this is not about the nomcom nominated persons >> being superior or whatever but about good corporate governance. And, at >> the end of the day the ICANN Board appoint the Chair - the nom com >> nominates. >> >> On 6/27/2016 4:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> Seun, >> >> >> >> One thing I feel very strong about is that the PTI president should not >> be the chair of the PTI Board, not because the PTI president is not capable >> but rather because the PTI president will have a conflict of interest on >> most of the issues considered by the PTI board. The president will be >> needed on the PTI Board to provide facts about PTI services but should not >> be put in the awkward position of being PTI Board chair. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com >> <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:49 PM >> *To:* Grace Abuhamad >> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; iotf(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> Somehow this skipped my raider, while this is already late, i could not >> come swallow 2 points from the final text. >> >> Section 5.4: I am quite concerned and wonder why we include the following >> text: >> "The Chairperson should be a NomCom nominated director". The board does >> the selection of chair person, so there is NO reason why ICANN appointed >> board member cannot be the chairperson if the board wants it. I don't think >> i dig turning the nomcom nominees into the defacto source of >> chairperson-hood. It seem to me that we are seeing them as more superior >> and trustworthy that the rest which is not necessarily always the case. >> Ofcourse i am with the rest of the response to that question. >> >> Section 7.1: I am concerned by this conclusion "The Corporation will not >> need additional officers therefore the board does not need this >> capability." as i think its an unnecessary lock-in and can have unforeseen >> implications in future. I will be fine with something that reads like below: >> "The Corporation should not need additional officers therefore the board >> may not need this capability. However such may be done with a unanimous >> votes from board subject to member(s) approval." >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Following the CWG-Stewardship call today, here attached are the latest >> redline and clean versions of the PTI response table to deliver to Sidley. >> Please review in the next 24h before we consider these final. >> >> >> >> 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 <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY >> UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW >> <https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE >> <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. * >> >> >> >> *From: *< <iotf-bounces(a)icann.org>iotf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of >> Grace Abuhamad < <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:49 PM >> *To: *"Gomes, Chuck" < <cgomes(a)verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com>, " >> <iotf(a)icann.org>iotf(a)icann.org" <iotf(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table >> >> >> >> Good catch Chuck. Per your comment and Matthew’s agreement, I was >> supposed to delete the sentence beginning with “Member approval NOT >> required….”. >> >> >> >> I’ll make the edit in the Google doc and await any further comments >> before circulating a new version in time for the CWG call. >> >> >> >> 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 <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY >> UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW >> <https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE >> <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. * >> >> >> >> *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM >> *To: *Grace Abuhamad < <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, >> "iotf(a)icann.org" < <iotf(a)icann.org>iotf(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *RE: Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table >> >> >> >> The edits look good to me. Was the second option in Section 7.6.1 >> supposed to be deleted? >> >> >> >> “Board may approve delegation of responsibilities or powers of President. >> >> >> >> Member approval NOT required for the prescription of additional duties by >> the board to the President.[1] >> <#m_-3607724523632041133_m_3186136462349631466_m_6812292797163057305__msocom_1> >> [2] >> <#m_-3607724523632041133_m_3186136462349631466_m_6812292797163057305__msocom_2> >> >> >> >> >> Member approval required for the prescription of additional powers by the >> board to the President.” >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* iotf-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:16 PM >> *To:* <iotf(a)icann.org>iotf(a)icann.org >> *Cc:* <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline >> version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present >> to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live >> editing process! >> >> >> >> --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 <%2B1%20202%20249%207545> | Mobile: +1 310 200 >> 7638 <%2B1%20310%20200%207638> >> >> >> >> *Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? * >> >> *LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY >> UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW >> <https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE >> <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. * >> >> >> >> *From: *Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >> *Date: *Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM >> *To: *< <iotf(a)icann.org>iotf(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Reminder: Please review the responses in PTI Bylaws table >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> In absence of the IOTF call today, I would just like to remind you to >> take some time to review the Google doc table of CWG responses on the PTI >> Bylaws. There are some notes and live edits made during the last IOTF call, >> and some comments from Chuck and Avri. The link to the document is: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJ… >> . >> >> >> >> I think (but will let the Chairs confirm) that the plan is still to have >> CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on >> Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then >> be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI >> Bylaws. >> >> >> >> 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 <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY >> UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW >> <https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE >> <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. * >> >> >> >> *From: *Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM >> *To: *< <iotf(a)icann.org>iotf(a)icann.org> >> *Cc: *" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < >> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Per the email below, steps 1 & 2 have been completed: the CWG-Stewardship >> Chairs have provided initial responses, and the staff have matched these >> responses to the transcript of the CWG-Stewardship meeting from last week. >> The initial responses are available in a Google doc for the IOTF’s comments >> at: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJ…. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that the CWG-Stewardship list is copied for information. >> Anyone on either of these lists should feel free to review and comment on >> the initial responses, but the responsibility lies primarily with the IOTF >> at this stage. >> >> >> >> I will let the Chairs clarify the timeline for review, but my >> understanding is that we would like to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in >> time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following >> group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the >> responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. >> >> >> >> 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* <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>*. **STAY >> UPDATED* <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>*. * >> *FOLLOW* <https://twitter.com/icann>*. **ENGAGE* >> <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>*. * >> >> >> >> *From: *< <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> >> cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson < >> jrobinson(a)afilias.info> >> *Organization: *Afilias >> *Reply-To: *Jonathan Robinson < <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> >> jrobinson(a)afilias.info> >> *Date: *Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM >> *To: *" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < >> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *[CWG-Stewardship] Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & >> Issues from Sidley >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> The substance and process for dealing with CWG Bylaws was discussed this >> on last week’s CWG call and then followed up by Lise & myself. >> >> >> >> Based on the discussions within the CWG, we propose the following course >> of action in order to get through the work as efficiently as possible. >> >> >> >> 1. Chairs will make a first attempt at answering / providing >> relevant input on the Sidley questions >> >> 2. Staff will review chairs’ input for consistency with the CWG >> meeting discussions >> >> 3. Answers / input to be shared with IOTF group for further review >> / development >> >> 4. Answers / input to be shared with CWG for further review / >> development >> >> 5. Answers / input to be shared via Client Committee with Sidley >> for incorporation into IANA Bylaws >> >> >> >> Thank-you >> >> >> >> >> >> Lise & Jonathan >> ------------------------------ >> >> I lean toward this approach. It seems to me that the PTI Board should >> have this authority on its own; also, it would cause delays if they had to >> wait to get ICANN approval, causing unnecessary delays. >> >> for so long as such powers were strictly limited according to the PTI >> mission/role etc. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IOTF mailing list >> IOTF(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * >> * <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* >> *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >> <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* >> >> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IOTF mailing listIOTF@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project >> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >> E: mshears(a)cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IOTF mailing list >> IOTF(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > IOTF mailing list > IOTF(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf > >

1 0

NTIA Report Update
by Grace Abuhamad June 27, 2016

June 27, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ntia-report-update. NTIA Report Update In a report issued earlier this month, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) found that the “proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA outlined in March 2014 when it stated its intent to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship role for the Internet domain name system (DNS) technical functions, known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.” One of many elements of NTIA’s review process was to evaluate the proposal against the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission Internal Control Framework Assessment. The use of the COSO framework was in alignment with the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommendation of how NTIA could enhance its review. NTIA’s COSO Assessment was favorable, with no items flagged as red. Of the 70 areas assessed only eleven received a yellow rating relating to four areas: · PTI governance (5 items) · PTI Audit Committee (1 item) · ICANN’s new investigatory process (2 items) · PTI Operations (3 items) Although NTIA does not require that any of the recommendations flagged as yellow be resolved as a pre-condition for the completion of the transition, we are confident that there is a clear path forward to address every item. We reviewed each of the items against NTIA’s recommended action, and implementation notes have been developed where further work is needed. NTIA’s recommendations and ICANN’s plans to address them can be found here. Of the eleven items that were rated yellow: · Two have already been addressed and do not require any further action · Six are already accounted for in the transition work plan and we anticipate completion by the time of transition · Three are expected to be completed post transition either as part of scheduled implementation work, or as part of normal operational planning We appreciate NTIA’s thorough review of the community-developed proposal. We will work with the community and NTIA to ensure that the plans to address these items will meet the expectations of NTIA and the ICANN community. -- 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: ICANN 56: IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Plan... @ Thu 30 Jun 2016 19:30 - 20:30 (AEST) (Cheryl Langdon-Orr)
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 25, 2016

June 25, 2016

You have been invited to the following event. Title: ICANN 56: IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning Update When: Thu 30 Jun 2016 19:30 – 20:30 Eastern Time - Melbourne, Sydney Where: Veranda 1; https://icann.adobeconnect.com/hel56-veranda1 Calendar: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Who: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr- organiser * iotf(a)icann.org * cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NnNyM2dkaGk3MHNtYWI5b… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

1 0

ICANN 56: IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning Update
by Yuko Green June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Please join us to the IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Planning Update in Helsinki. This session will provide an update on implementation planning activities and timelines associated with the IANA Stewardship Transition, jointly presented by IOTF and ICANN. Agenda: - Opening Remarks - Implementation Updates - Q&A Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/hel56-veranda1 English Audio Stream (HIGH): http://stream.icann.org:8000/hel56-veranda1-en.m3u English Audio Stream (LOW): http://stream.icann.org:8000/hel56-veranda1-en-lo.m3u

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship
by Gomes, Chuck June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Without any intention to detract from Michele’s main questions, I inserted a few comments below that I think are important to keep in mind. Chuck From: community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:26 AM To: Xavier J. Calvez; community-finance(a)icann.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Cc: Executive Team; BFC Subject: Re: [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship Xavier Just reading over this and a few comments / concerns. It sounds like this expenditure is being viewed as a fait accompli and it’s really case of moving things around to work out how it will be funded, which seems a bit backwards. How can you agree on the expenditure for a project without knowing how you will fund it? [Chuck Gomes] Don’t we know how it will be funded, i.e., via reserves? What we don’t know is whether the reserves will be restored and how, as Michele notes below. The reserves are already depleted and there doesn’t appear to be any firm plan on how those reserves will be restored, unless I missed something. Yet the expenditure keeps growing. [Chuck Gomes] As I understand the word ‘depleted’, I don’t think that it is accurate to say that the reserves are depleted. In my mind, that would mean there are no reserves left. As I am sure Michele knows, that is not the case. But it is true that they have been significantly reduced. There also appears to be sufficient reserves to cover future unbudgeted expenses and still have a sizable balance in the reserves, albeit a lot less than the currently targeted level of one year of operating expenses. The legal fees are again ridiculously high. How does ICANN select vendors for these kind of services? Is there a tender process? Is there an RFP? [Chuck Gomes] Note that the CWG Stewardship via its client committee and the CCWG Accountability via its mechanisms selected the two external legal firms. That doesn’t mean that any existing tender processes shouldn’t have applied but I am pretty sure that time constraints were an issue. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Date: Monday 20 June 2016 at 03:07 To: "community-finance(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>" <community-finance(a)icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org<mailto:executive-team@icann.org>>, BFC <fin-comm(a)icann.org<mailto:fin-comm@icann.org>> Subject: [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship Dear all, Please find attached an extract from the final FY17 Budget document relative to the IANA Stewardship transition (Section 4), currently under review, prior to Board consideration for approval in Helsinki. You may remember that the Draft budget document submitted for public comment did not include information on the FY17 expenses for this project. The Project Cost Support Team created in Marrakech has been working with the BFC, the CCWG, CWG, ICG co-chairs and involved staff to estimate the draft project’s expenses for FY17. These draft estimates have been included in the attached section (total $8.8m, page 3/10). Though offered late in the process, as these estimates are under review, your comments and questions on this section are welcome. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship
by Xavier J. Calvez June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

Michele et al, For simplicity, I will use Chuck’s email on this topic to address Michele’s comments/questions, as Chuck has inserted additional comments on top of Michele’s. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 4:25 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, BFC <fin-comm(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship Xavier Just reading over this and a few comments / concerns. It sounds like this expenditure is being viewed as a fait accompli and it’s really case of moving things around to work out how it will be funded, which seems a bit backwards. How can you agree on the expenditure for a project without knowing how you will fund it? The reserves are already depleted and there doesn’t appear to be any firm plan on how those reserves will be restored, unless I missed something. Yet the expenditure keeps growing. The legal fees are again ridiculously high. How does ICANN select vendors for these kind of services? Is there a tender process? Is there an RFP? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 20 June 2016 at 03:07 To: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Executive Team <executive-team(a)icann.org>, BFC <fin-comm(a)icann.org> Subject: [community-finance] FY17 Budget update: Section 4 on IANA Stewardship Dear all, Please find attached an extract from the final FY17 Budget document relative to the IANA Stewardship transition (Section 4), currently under review, prior to Board consideration for approval in Helsinki. You may remember that the Draft budget document submitted for public comment did not include information on the FY17 expenses for this project. The Project Cost Support Team created in Marrakech has been working with the BFC, the CCWG, CWG, ICG co-chairs and involved staff to estimate the draft project’s expenses for FY17. These draft estimates have been included in the attached section (total $8.8m, page 3/10). Though offered late in the process, as these estimates are under review, your comments and questions on this section are welcome. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348

1 0

FW: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
by Jonathan Robinson June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

All, FYI. Please note We did not have an IOTF call today so have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this item. Jonathan From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] Sent: 10 June 2016 18:05 To: iotf(a)icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations Dear members of the IOTF, Attached, please find the rationale for PTI staffing recommendations we have made in the PTI Implementation Approach document. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have. Regards, 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

18 36

Sen. Cruz Letter to NTIA
by Greg Shatan June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016

Link to letter on IANA sent today from Cruz, et al. to NTIA is below: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160621_NTIALetter.pdf Greg

1 0