August 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
by Greg Shatan Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email. We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below. Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order: 1. The CWG 2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG 3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) 4. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. A completely new structure ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community." The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including: - Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community - Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust - Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) - Instructing the CCG Representatives - Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) - Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement - Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). - Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. - Withdrawing from the Community Agreement - Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) - Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things) Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well). Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the *very limited time-frame* we have to figure this out (at least, initially). Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Best regards, Greg

6 10

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement
by Paul M Kane - CWG Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Hi Chris (sorry for the delay I need to consult with the ccTLDs that raised the issue with me first). Sidley tried to capture the legal language in their Annex C paper - it may not have been perfect but it was a good attempt. I don't think it is new ... nor late (just forgotten) .... and everything to do with PTI/ICANN. It would be sensible to capture the different responsibilites expected from ICANN/PTI at this time especially as the current Section 3 i c ii of the draft of the Naming Agreement is incorrect. 1591 pre-dates ICANN and (some) ccTLDs have an opt-out from having to be impacted by ICANN Policy which has been enshrined and respected in ICANN's own Bylaws since day 1. (ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10). Others, like AU have formal agreements with ICANN (not dis-similar to the early gTLD) that outlines the roles and responsibilities Others fall in between the two with and exchange of letters that define the limited role ICANN has and stipulate the role ccTLD Registries have in serving their communities. Best Paul Quoting Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk>: > Hi Paul, > > > Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in > charge > > of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have > agreements > > with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+ > > others don't!" > > > > Where has this been respected/recognised please? > > > The changes drafts of the agreement and annex reflect, I think, the input > from the ccTLDs and correct the language in the first draft around the status > of the FoI and GAC principles. There may be some more tinkering to do on > those points but any issues will doubtless be raised in the public comment. > > Your point appears to be a different one that is nothing to do with the PTI > but is, rather, seeking to insert statements of principle at this extremely > late stage. Or if I'm wrong and your point is relevant to the PTI then surely > this is something that should be raised by you and other ccTLDs in the public > comment isn't it? > > Or have I misunderstood? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > On 22 Aug 2016, at 15:16, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > Thanks Trang > > > > I have been asking members of the ccTLD community for their guidance on > the > > draft Agreement and to make sure they are satisfied with Annex C being > > incorporated. (I have yet to read the latest draft). > > > > Also the CWG asked that I seek clarification as to what was meant by the > opening > > remarks in Section 1. > > > > The comments I received by email were: > > > > > > "Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in > charge > > of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have > agreements > > with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+ > > others don't!" > > > > Where has this been respected/recognised please? > > > > I have subsequently been asked (as the original person advocating) by a > > different ccTLD Rep for a status report regarding the promised end-to-end > > automation for an updates to the Root Zone... > > > > I have said that this is not part of the transition and may occur later, > but I'd > > welcome ICANN/IANA's response just to accurately convey the message to the > ccTLD > > Community. > > > > Thanks > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>: > > > >> All, > >> > >> Please see attached a draft of the ICANN-PTI services agreement. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Trang > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Agenda for CWG Call (01 September @ 20:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Below, please find the agenda for the CWG call on 01 September at 20:00 UTC. 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * Naming Functions Agreement * Services Agreement * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB 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

2 1

Status of CWG IANA Stewardship implementation
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear Kavouss and the rest of CWG, We have now had the time to discuss an update provided by ICANN staff, so we are able to send the update as requested. ICANN post the updated status report on the implementation website (https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation) every other week under Document Archive & Links section. The latest status report is posted at https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/107-transition-implementation-status-re…, which is from last week Thursday. This is a good place to view the latest status updates, as it has the over-all summary slide as well as detailed dashboards for each project. To summarize what’s been completed: Track 1: - RZMS updates & parallel testing - RZMA Track 2: - SLEs for Naming Community - SLAs with the Number Community - IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement - PTI Incorporation - RZERC - CSC Track 3: - ICANN Bylaws - ICANN Articles of Incorporation - Reconsideration Request Enhancements - Empowered Community - Implementation of the pot-transition Financial Planning Process As for the Work remaining, it was presented to CWG during the last week’s call and the one-page summary slide is available at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61608948/CWG%20Update%2025…. PTI Naming functions Agreement: - 09 September: Public comment period ends - Before 15 September: Publish staff analysis and revised agreement - 15 September: ICANN Board approval - Before 30 September: PTI Board approval - Before 30 September: Signature - Sidley circulated issues list on current version of the agreement - ICANN has reviewed the issues list and will discuss with Sidley PTI Services Agreement: - Before 15 September: Finalize agreement - 15 September: ICANN Board approval - Before 30 September: PTI Board approval - Before 30 September: Signature - ICANN and Sidley working through issues list and will bring to the CWG any items requiring input IANA IPR Agreements: - 12 September: Public comment period ends - Timeline leading to signature will be discussed by IANA IPR work group on 25 August We would like to thank Yuko for preparing this very comprehensive update. Best, Jonathan and Lise

1 0

FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document
by Yuko Green Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Dear Elise, Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list. Regards, Yuko From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM To: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org; Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org> Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Yuko Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document. - Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 , - and the "where applicable" in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don't agree with the adding of ""were applicable" or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles. 4.7 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: "Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). We'd like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. n/a Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, "where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles." See above. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. Elise Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser Norwegian GAC representative Norwegian Communications Authority Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947 ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no>

7 9

Status of work
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 29, 2016

Aug. 29, 2016

Dear Co-Chairs May I respectfully request you to provide a brief status of works being accomplished and those still in Process This is important for our works to know where we are Regards Kavouss

2 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript for CWG IANA Meeting #89 - 25 August
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #89 on 25 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9BOsAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items · ACTION (staff): circulate Naming function agreement issues review table to the CWG mailing list · ACTION (IOTF): provide comments within 24 hrs. · ACTION (staff) : send comments from Chuck and Jonathan on Schedule A to Sidley thereafter. · ACTION (Sidley): Draft the memorandum giving authority to ICANN. · ACTION (Greg Shatan): Make some suggestions through the CWG mailing list to get the discusssion started. Notes 1. Status Update (Lise Fuhr) PTI bylaws work complete Naming function agreement is work-in-progress 2. Implementation Update (Trang) Full status update deck continues to be posted to Implementation web page. 3. Key Issues 3.1. Naming functions agreement · · Sidley has provided an updated legal issues list, currently being reviewed by ICANN, and asking for revised versions of both agreements as soon as possible. · ccTLDs have a meeting later today to discuss Annex C (issue around co-responsibilities of ccTLDs) · ACTION (staff): circulate Naming function agreement issues review table to the CWG mailing list 3.2. Services agreement · Sidley asking to clarify how IANA technical staff will be handled? ICANN will be seconding IANA staff to PTI. · DT-O reviewed Schedule A of the agreement and made suggestions to clarify the services being listed. · ACTION (IOTF): provide comments within 24 hrs. · ACTION (staff) : send comments from Chuck and Jonathan on Schedule A to Sidley thereafter. 3.3 IANA IPR · Sidley examined what it entails if ICANN is counterparty to the Community Agreement. · Group agrees to pursue with ICANN as counterparty (scenario 1), preferably with no changes to the bylaws. · ACTION (Sidley): Draft the memorandum giving authority to ICANN. · CWG needs to decide who the CCG representatives are going to be. · Definition of the Names community needs to be provided in the Community agreement. · ACTION (Greg Shatan): Make some suggestions through the CWG mailing list to get the discusssion started. AOB Additional CWG meetings will be scheduled in September.

1 0

Final Report on Parallel Testing
by Nathalie Vergnolle Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear all, The Verisign/ ICANN Final Report on Parallel Testing of Post-Transition Root Zone Management System has been posted at < https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship-implementation/root-zone-management-sy… >, and can be downloaded here<https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/105-rzms-parallel-testing-final-report-…>. Thanks, Nathalie. Direct line: +1-310-578-8957 Mobile: +1-310-938-1037 Skype: nathalie.vergnolle.icann Jabber: nathalie.vergnolle(a)jabber.icann.org

1 0

Naming Function Agreement Review document
by Yuko Green Aug. 25, 2016

Aug. 25, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Attached, please find the Naming Function Agreement Review document that was shared during today's CWG meeting. 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

FW: CWG meeting agenda & action items
by Yuko Green Aug. 24, 2016

Aug. 24, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, I am forwarding this e-mail from Sidley on behalf of Jonathan. Regards, Yuko Green From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:50 AM To: Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org>; Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Cc: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>; Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> Subject: RE: CWG meeting agenda & action items Dear All, Attached is our memorandum on ICANN as the potential signatory to the IPR Community Agreement on behalf of the names community. We look forward to discussing on tomorrow’s call. Kind regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan(a)sidley.com From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuko Green Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:31 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] CWG meeting agenda & action items Dear Sharon and Sidley Team, During the last CWG call, there was an action item assigned to Sidley for the IANA IPR matter: ACTION: Sidley to provide CWG with list of issues to be dealt with if ICANN is the chosen signatory. With the next CWG coming up tomorrow, I wanted to follow up to see where this work may be at this stage. Would you be able to share something with the CWG tomorrow? For your review, I am providing you with the agenda for tomorrow’s CWG call (25 Aug 16 @ 14:00 UTC) below. 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * Naming Functions Agreement * Services Agreement * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB Regards, Yuko Green **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0