- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

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

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

May 11, 2016

As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work. 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. Alan At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities >decide how they would like this to happen. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L >Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM >To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be > > reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including > > a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope > > that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be > > relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to > > rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS > > priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- > > operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing > we can count on. > >Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs >to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with >broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see >the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It >seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion >about this (and these concerns were amply borne out). > >--MM >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

6 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

No. But it has a strong role to play in recommending that something be authorized or not. The committee does not have the authority to approve. That was given to the ICANN Board in the CWG Proposal. But presuming the committee is doing its job properly, the Board is not likely to second guess it. It is not too dissimilar from the role an SO plays in recommending policy to the Board. The process and the issues are different, but it is a similar (not identical) relationship, in this case related to implementation and not policy. Alan At 09/05/2016 10:44 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Alan, > >Do you see the RZERC as having an authorization role? > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:38 AM >To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Andrew Sullivan; >cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review > >As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to >set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more >complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work. > >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. > >Alan > >At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide > >how they would like this to happen. > > > >Chuck > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton > >L > >Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM > >To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be > > > reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about > > > including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we > > > should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this > > > group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current > > > work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room > > > in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think > > > maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort > > > of thing > > we can count on. > > > >Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to > >have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader > >inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit > >of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from > >the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and > >these concerns were amply borne out). > > > >--MM > >_______________________________________________ > >CWG-Stewardship mailing list > >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ > >CWG-Stewardship mailing list > >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= > >Dear Co-Chairs/all, > >Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have >been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) > >Just a few clarification question/comments: > >- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not >seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee >- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to >"RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this >implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. >- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but >there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations >requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. >- There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). >- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to >PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) >- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. >- Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. >- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the >charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. >- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since >they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) >since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" ><<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>Fuhr(a)etno.eu> wrote: > >Dear CWG, > > > >Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to >receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week >review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may >where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. > > > >Best regards, > >Jonathan and Lise > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

9 16

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

Milton, you raise an interesting issue, although perhaps not the one you thought you were raising. It is one we missed during the initial review of this charter. Among other things, the name of the group is incorrect. Although it is responsible for overseeing the architecture of the Root Zone, it is also responsible for significant operational changes in regard to all IANA functions (something that was omitted from earlier versions of the charter, which also led to the incorrect name). This is in line with the NTIA approval function it partially replaces (lesser changes no longer needing approval at all) and with the CWG report. IANA Functions Evolution Review Committee is probably a more apt name, even though it is a weak-sounding acronym - IFERC. You are correct regarding the RZM, although I think the generic conflict statement covers the issue, given that the people on the group are not likely to be overwhelmed by the RZM delegate. Alan At 08/05/2016 11:37 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >Two important observations I would make: > >1. It is clear that whoever drafted the >RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset >of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, >numbers and protocols. The composition of the >group, for example, does not distinguish between >the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and >numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root >Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for >management of and which this RZERC will consider >is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is >unclear to me why ASO is included on this body >and the management of numbers ârootâ has >very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM. > >2. Another issue that seems to be >overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a >paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the >incumbent RZM might be considered to have a >conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with >ICANN about the RZM contract terms and >conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do >want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this >committee because of the operational knowledge >it would bring to bear. So their role should be >circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent >RZM contractor should not chair the committee >and any definition of âconsensusâ should not >allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations >pertaining to its own role or contract. > >A not-so important but funny observation: >Seunâs modifications referred to âexpenses >incurred in the curse of carrying out their servicesâ > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji >Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review > >Dear all, >Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. >Regards > >On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= >Dear Co-Chairs/all, >Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I >probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) >Just a few clarification question/comments: >- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the >charter does not seem to include description. > > >It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee > > > >- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and >don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the >ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? > > >The name is new. The committee is described in >paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. > > > >- I note that review of charter every 5 years is >indicated, but there seem to be no room to >modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. > > >The 5 years is a mandatory review. > > > >- There is no process of replacing members indicated. > > >There is similarly no process for formally >naming them. It is up to the appointing body >(they all come from somewhere specific). > > > >- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going >to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC > > >ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can >act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) > > > >- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? > > >It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory >Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the >Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of >approving substantive changes in the RZ >architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. > > > >- Who funds the activities of the RZERC? > > >To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. > > > >- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly >indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? > > >They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. > > > >- What will be the connection between RZERC and >PTI board (since they will be more closer to >IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it >seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? > > >No connection. The PTI Board oversees the >physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, >replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as >per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. >Alan > > > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" ><<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>Fuhr(a)etno.eu> wrote: >Dear CWG, > >Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. >We would like to receive your comments at 17 May >at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). >We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 >may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. > >Best regards, >Jonathan and Lise >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > >

5 10

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

I obviously cannot speak for you, but at the time DT-F was convened, I understood that issues such as software systems and critical operational procedures for any of IANA's activities had to have a "backstop", as we were then calling NTIA's involvement, and that was what we were discussing. Yes, each of the other communities COULD set up a similar multi-expert body and IANA could consult with any or all of them as appropriate, but there did not seem to be much value in that. Alan At 08/05/2016 10:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > >MM: We created the committee because someone said, "suppose there is >a need to make a major change in RZ operations comparable to DNSSEC. >Where does the authority to do that lie?" We discovered that, absent >NTIA, there was no clear institutional locus for initiating or >approving those kinds of changes. So we created this committee for >that very limited purpose. It was never conceived as a replacement >for ALL of NTIA's roles. > >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
by Alan Greenberg May 8, 2016

May 8, 2016

Seun, I tend to agree with Chuck, but I have added a few specific comments to some of your points. It is important to recall that during the initial discussions, this group was (somewhat facetiously) referred to as a group of the wise old men (and women) of the Internet. It replaces a completely opaque (and I suspect often ad hoc) NTIA process. Alan At 08/05/2016 02:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Dear all, > >Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. > >Regards > >On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= >>Dear Co-Chairs/all, >>Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have >>been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) >>Just a few clarification question/comments: >>- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not >>seem to include description. >It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee > > >>- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to >>"RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this >>implementing? >The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the >CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. > > >>- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but >>there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations >>requiring urgent need. >The 5 years is a mandatory review. > > >>- There is no process of replacing members indicated. >There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to >the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). > > >>- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to >>PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC >ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor >to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) > > >>- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? >It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the >sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the >responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ >architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. > > >>- Who funds the activities of the RZERC? >To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. > > >>- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the >>charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? >They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. > > >>- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since >>they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) >>since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? >No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. >The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per >the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. >Alan > > >>Regards >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" >><<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>Fuhr(a)etno.eu> wrote: >>Dear CWG, >> >>Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to >>receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week >>review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 >>may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. >> >>Best regards, >>Jonathan and Lise >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Disposition: inline >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="DRAFT RZERC Charter-V4_Clean.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="DRAFT RZERC Charter-V4_Clean.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: f_iny6nfft0 >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:RKYJSGpewbXB5X8BCIVCTR12R5RnOVF5vDYiUXF2ghCinJfjICemF+a/mZd2F9RiodfNUDVvij2BJXrsgv3dc9050VgmptARojchdJfOdxLm2s4SIMOPGSZVZAB+CEm6Ym7vxHCjJqUKuwPjCfDcSKF3dqrRARPLlvlsNU8jT9k=

1 0

Proposed Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Meeting on 12 May
by Grace Abuhamad May 6, 2016

May 6, 2016

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for our next CWG-Stewardship meeting on 12 May. Please remember that the group has until 17 May to comment on the RZERC Charter (attached). Thank you to Chuck and Eduardo for submitting comments on list already! Agenda: CWG-Stewardship meeting on 12 May 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Update 3. Legal Issues/ Client Committee Update ICANN Bylaws IANA IPR PTI Formation Documents ICANN-PTI Contract 4. RZERC and CSC Charter Reviews 5. Project Costs Support Team (PCST) Update 6. Closing Remarks Have a nice weekend, and happy mother’s day to those who celebrate this Sunday, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

1 0

FW: CWG IANA - Formation of the CSC and RZERC
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Dear all, Please see below a communication from the co-chairs to the SO/AC leaders earlier this week. We will upload a version to the Wiki correspondence section as well. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 4:48 AM To: "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "jari.arkko(a)piuha.net" <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf(a)frobbit.se>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, ''Tripti Sinha' <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, "'Mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr'" <'Mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr'>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net>, "'louie(a)louie.net'" <'louie(a)louie.net'>, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se>, "oscar(a)lacnic.net" <oscar(a)lacnic.net>, "chair(a)nro.net" <chair(a)nro.net>, German Valdez <german(a)nro.net>, "'Verd, Brad'" <bverd(a)verisign.com>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf.4711(a)gmail.com>, 'Andrew Sullivan' <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com>, Kurt Rossler <kurt.rossler(a)icann.org>, "katrina(a)nic.lv" <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz>, Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu> Subject: CWG IANA - Formation of the CSC and RZERC Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, SO and AC colleagues: Since the transmission of the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to NTIA on 10 March 2016, there has been an increase in implementation planning activities in several areas. As Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship, we would like to bring to your attention two important areas: The first area is the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). The CWG-Stewardship in its proposal recommended that a Customer Standing Committee be formed to replace NTIA’s oversight 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 and Advisory Committees. The second area is the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC). The RZERC's primary responsibility will be to advise the ICANN Board regarding approval of any operational and architectural changes to the root zone, a role currently held by NTIA. The composition of the RZERC will include representation from the ICANN Board, IANA, SSAC, RSSAC, ASO, IETF, RySG, ccNSO and the Root Zone Maintainer. As implementation planning activities in these areas continue, please be on notice to expect communications from ICANN’s implementation team requesting your organization’s participation in these important committees. Broad cross-community representation on these committees will ensure valuable input into these committees’ work, and we encourage your organizations to participate. Thank you for your continued support. Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG IANA Stewardship Transition

1 0

IAB commented on draft bylaws
by Andrew Sullivan May 4, 2016

May 4, 2016

Dear colleagues, I thought it might be interesting to participants here that the IAB has submitted a comment on the draft bylaws. The posting has appeared in the archive at http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00001.html, and the IAB's announcement is at https://www.iab.org/2016/05/04/iab-comments-on-draft-new-icann-bylaws/. Best regards, A (for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0