- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Canceling the call on Thursday 14 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear all, Since we had a call on Monday this week, we will cancel the call on Thursday 14 April. We will plan on a call for Thursday 21 April at 16:00 UTC. Please look for invitations from Brenda to appear shortly. Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

1 0

Updated Responses to Bylaws Coordination Group
by Grace Abuhamad April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear all, Please see attached a revised version of the responses document per the call yesterday. There are two items from Sharon that are currently being discussed on the mailing list, and we will update the document with the outcomes of those discussions if needed. The responses are due to the Bylaws Coordination group by tomorrow (13 April), so please provide your feedback by 19:00 UTC in order to allow sufficient time to compile and finalize the responses for the Chairs to send through. 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: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Please review for Monday: Responses to Bylaws Coordination Group Dear all, Please see attached the compiled set of responses from our DT leads. Please review these responses in time for the call on Monday at 15:00 UTC. For reference the Bylaws document and original list of questions are also attached. Seun had commented on Avri’s document, so I included his comments in this document as well. Thank you Avri (and Matt), Donna, and Chuck for your efforts to get the responses drafted by Friday! Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

1 0

FW: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
by Mueller, Milton L April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear colleagues, The chair of the ICG and several additional members have some important concerns about the draft bylaws. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM > To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg(a)ianacg.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback > > I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton > to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group: > > Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external > to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those > documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies > this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and > PTI effective [October 1, 2016]." > > Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet > timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be > extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does > not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are > supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point > whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have > some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about > whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a > document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it > could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.) > > Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for > documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under > (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally > specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I > think we should recommend that (D) be removed. > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG
by Christopher Wilkinson April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Good evening: With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".) Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights of its members and liaisons. Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure. During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a consensus. The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.) I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of consensus must be maintained. Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13 voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants. Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than a majority of 7. However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars. It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone, absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by consensus and not by a majority vote. Regards Christopher Wilkinson Begin forwarded message: > From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version > Date: 3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00 > To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > > Dear colleagues, > > In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. > > It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. > > The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). > > Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. > > Best regards, > > Mathieu > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > >> Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> >> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 >> Destinataire: bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan(a)sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas(a)sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam(a)sidley.com> >> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version >> Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> >> >> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, >> >> Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. >> >> We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week >> >> >> Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws. >> >> >> More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period. >> >> >> Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals. >> >> >> As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment >> >> >> Next Steps – >> >> >> 1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams; >> >> >> 2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group; >> >> >> 3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations. >> >> >> ——— >> >> As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes. >> >> >> We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN. >> >> John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei >> >> >> > > > > >> _____________________ >> ____________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bylaws-coord mailing list >> bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

8 10

Wrap up from Bylaws call
by Grace Abuhamad April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

Hi all, Our call ended a bit abruptly due to a technical issue with the phone line. Lise has asked me to send a recap note with documents. Recap of CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review - 4 April 2016 @ 18:00 UTC We have 9 days left to review the draft Bylaws in keeping with the overall timeline for the transition. Sharon Flanagan from Sidley provided a thorough overview of the areas of interest to the CWG bylaws to focus on (PTI, CSC, IFR), and the outstanding issues for clarification. She noted that escalation processes will be included in PTI-ICANN contract, and that the CSC Charter is a separate document per the CWG-Stewardship prior request. Following the presentation from Sharon, Lise asked for the three key DT leads (Donna for CSC, Chuck for Budget and Escalation; Avri for Reviews and Separation Process) to take the charge on responding to the issues for clarification list and reading through the relevant sections of the draft bylaws text. A proposed set of responses is to be provided to the CWG-Stewardship via the mailing list no later than Friday 8 April. In the meantime, all are welcome (and encouraged) to review and provide responses on the mailing list. There were some questions about PTI funding and budget. These will be addressed by DT-O on their calls this Tuesday and Thursday. More documents! The draft bylaws were released for 10-day community review on Sunday 3 April. Along with the bylaws draft, there was a document with a list of questions and clarifications to address. These documents are attached in PDF and Word formats and named: “Draft New ICANN Bylaws” "Issues for Bylaws Coordination Group” Since the release of these documents, the legal teams have provided redline comparisons of the old vs. new bylaws. Sharon provided a CWG-specific one to share with the group. These documents are: "Redline – April 2 Draft Bylaws compared to Current Bylaws” "CWG Bylaws Redline” To assist the DT-leads with their response drafting, I have prepared a template similar to the one we used in the first review of the bylaws (Nov 2015 – March 2016). This is the bare-bones version to kick-start the work. We can fill out more of the table as responses come in. “Responses to Bylaws Coordination Group – 4 April" More calls! In addition to the CWG-Stewardship-specific calls, if you are interested in the CCWG-Accountability bylaws, please join the CCWG-Accountability’s calls. The adobe room for the CCWG-Accountability calls is open to observers: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/. The calls are scheduled for: 5 April at 19:00 UTC 7 April at 12:00 UTC Finally, we expect that Jonathan will be available to lead a 2nd CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review call on Monday 11 April from 15:00 – 16:30 UTC. Once we confirm his availability, we will confirm the call and send calendar invitations out. This is important work! This is the final stretch. The CWG-Stewardship has been active for 547 days, and has made lots of impactful decisions on the future of the IANA Stewardship. The next few days are the ones where you can play a role the engraining those decisions. It’s a unique opportunity. Let’s do this! — 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.

4 4

Please review for Monday: Responses to Bylaws Coordination Group
by Grace Abuhamad April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

Dear all, Please see attached the compiled set of responses from our DT leads. Please review these responses in time for the call on Monday at 15:00 UTC. For reference the Bylaws document and original list of questions are also attached. Seun had commented on Avri’s document, so I included his comments in this document as well. Thank you Avri (and Matt), Donna, and Chuck for your efforts to get the responses drafted by Friday! Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

2 1

ICANN and Verisign Announce Start of 90-day Root Zone Management System "Parallel Testing" Period
by Grace Abuhamad April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-08-en ICANN and Verisign Announce Start of 90-day Root Zone Management System "Parallel Testing" Period As scheduled and previously communicated, on 6 April 2016, ICANN and Verisign began a 90-day “parallel testing” period to verify the continued integrity of the data contained in the root zone file produced via the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) following the successful completion of theIANA Stewardship Transition. This is a key step in ensuring the continued security and stability of the Internet’s root zone. The parallel testing period is part of the proposal that ICANN and Verisign submitted to NTIA in August 2015, at NTIA’s request, on how best to transition NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management to the global multistakeholder community in a manner that maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). The parallel testing period will be used to confirm that the production RZMS and the parallel test version of the RZMS (that has had the NTIA authorization step removed) produces identical output for every root zone file published. During the parallel testing period, and until the successful completion of the IANAStewardship Transition, the authoritative root zone file will continue to be produced by the production RZMS that contains the authorization step performed by NTIA. The parallel testing period is scheduled to be conducted for a continuous 90-day period and will be considered successful as long as no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS. In the event that any unexplained differences are found the issue(s) will be addressed and the 90-day parallel testing period will be restarted. Verisign will be publishing daily comparison reports throughout the testing period, which will be made available on their website. ICANN will also be publishing monthly reports, which can be found onICANN’s Stewardship Implementation webpage. The RZMS parallel testing period is part of ICANN’s broader implementation planning efforts in response to the anticipated IANA Stewardship Transition. On 14 March 2014, NTIA announced its intent to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions to the multistakeholder community. The Root ZoneAdministrator (RZA) role currently performed by NTIA will be eliminated upon the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, currently projected for September 2016.

1 0

UPDATE: CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review Meeting on Monday, 11 April
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Hello all, Please be sure to note Monday, 11 April CWG-Stewardship Bylaws Review Meeting has changed time to begin at 15:00 UTC. Calendar invites have been sent with this update. Thank you. Enjoy your weekend! Kind regards, Brenda

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 7 April 2016
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 7 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ti6AAw A copy of the notes and action item may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda [---] Action Item Action: Grace to transmit agreed Bylaw text to DT-O for approval, then to Jonathan and Lise once agreement in DT-O. Responses within 24h at most. Lise and Jonathan could confirm whether the text has legal's 'blessing'. Notes Agenda & Notes: Mary Uduma on audio only Cheryl to lead call in Chuck's absence. Outstanding actions from prior calls: * Xavier to provide clarifications on the DT-O budget draft * Elise/Xavier to discuss IANA Services Budget 1. Develop a process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget * Update from Xavier regarding meeting with Elise * Xavier and Elise intend to put together a document that sets out a process, timeline, and allows for a community review process. The draft will be high-level and can be refined later on. * Estimated timeframe: Xavier would like to have a draft that has been discussed with DT-O in time for Helsinki (June 2016) 2. Developing a Caretaker Budget * Update from Xavier regarding his ideas * Question for discussion: Should vetoing the PTI budget trigger both the PTI Caretaker Budget and the ICANN caretaker budget? * Next steps? 3. Financial Stability for PTI * Response from Sharon * Xavier's suggested next steps Text proposed by Sharon with edits from Greg: "To maintain ongoing operational excellence and financial stability of the IANA functions (so long as they are performed by ICANN or pursuant to contract with ICANN) and PTI, ICANN shall be required to plan for and allocate funds to the IANA functions and PTI, as applicable, that are sufficient to cover the future expenses and contingencies to ensure uninterrupted performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future" Action: Grace to transmit agreed Bylaw text to DT-O for approval, then to Jonathan and Lise once agreement in DT-O. Responses within 24h at most. Lise and Jonathan could confirm whether the text has legal's 'blessing'. Next Meeting: * Wednesday 13 April at 20:00 UTC

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 5 April 2016
by Brenda Brewer April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 5 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sy6AAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda [---] Action Items Action: Chuck to send email to Client Committee (Greg, Lise, Maarten, Jonathan) to request legal advice. Action: Chuck to send the comments to Xavier for short term response before developing comments further. Notes 1. Roll call -- all in Adobe Connect room 2. Confirm agenda -- confirmed 3. Ensuring multi-year continuity of IANA Services funding * * Review of Bylaws language proposed by Sidley * Revised Bylaw: To maintain ongoing operational excellence and financial stability of the IANA functions (so long as they are performed by ICANN or pursuant to contract with ICANN), ICANN shall be required to plan for and fund sufficiently the future expenses and contingencies to ensure uninterrupted performance of those IANA functions. * In email to Sidley: Is it possible to capture the concept of multi-year funding? language around "allocation of funds" vs "fund"? Action: Chuck to send email to Client Committee (Greg, Lise, Maarten, Jonathan) to request legal advice. 4. Possible DT-O or CWG comments on the Draft FY17 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget -- Draft comments sent by Chuck on Sunday, April 3. Action: Chuck to send the comments to Xavier for short term response before developing comments further. 5. Develop a process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget -- tabled for next meeting 6. Developing a Caretaker Budget -- tabled for next meeting 7. AOB 8. Next meeting: Thursday, 7 April, 20:00 UTC (4 pm EDT, 1 pm PDT)

1 0