- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Agenda for CWG IANA Meeting #91 (08 September @ 14:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Below, please find the agenda for CWG IANA Meeting #91, which is scheduled for 08 September at 14:00 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: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hello Kavouss, We came to a conclusion that creating an unincorporated entity isn't feasible during the development of CWG and CCWG proposals. I don't think we should go back to that just to implement a tiny part(though seem very important to some) of the CWG proposal. If ICANN is willing to sign on behalf, while empowering the community to be able to make decisions relating to the management of the names related part of the IPR then I guess that is all that matter. We will always have the EC being the "community" legal entity to fall back on whenever there is need for that. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Sep 2016 15:17, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I am sorry to say that I do not agree that "*The CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this particular action"* CWG .IS NOT ALEGAL ENTITY thus can not request the ICANN to sign on its behalf. What Sidley said is the views of Sidley. PERHAPS they want to cut and paste the legal necessity. All six chartering Organization authorized CWG to act on behalf of Names Community studying the transition issue could form an unincorporated Association to a have a legal existence and then authorize ICANN TO SIGN ON ITS BEHALF The issue of being party to an agreement is not limited to signing that agreement but it would be a continued process to implement the terms and conditions of agreement and in case of difficulties stand before the Court vis a vis other parties. Moreover, neither CWG nor its two co chairs have a permanent existence and thus not appropriate to perform the tasks mentioned above. The appointment was for specific terms and not permanent . You can not oversimplify the tasks This is against all legal principles Regards Arasteh. 2016-09-06 3:13 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: > Based on my understanding of the advice received from Sidley, as CWG's > counsel, I do not believe that any legal entity needs to be formed. The > CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the > "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the > initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of > the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there > is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this > particular action. > > After the initial appointment of representatives, the Names Operational > Community can then act under the Community Agreement through the Names > Co-Chair. If ICANN does anything that the Names Operational Community > objects to, and it can't be resolved through discussions, the Names > Community can replace ICANN as the signatory. In the unlikely event that > more severe problems arise, we should be able to use the Empowered > Community to deal with ICANN. > > We should run this by Sidley to confirm that no legal entity needs to be > created in the situation discussed above. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Dear Mr. Robinson >> We can not established a legal entity through CWG . >> If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as >> you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community" >> through CWG which established by Chartering organizations >> That does not work >> We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT >> and Paste >> Regards >> Arasteh >> >> 2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>: >> >>> Greg and others, >>> >>> >>> >>> Apologies, for the slow response. >>> >>> >>> >>> I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up >>> with: >>> >>> >>> >>> The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through: >>> >>> >>> >>> a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter >>> >>> b) Their Chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 >>> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >>> >>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of >>> the "Names Community" >>> >>> >>> >>> Provisionally, we have ended up with: >>> >>> >>> >>> a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by >>> >>> b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the >>> "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of >>> the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations >>> of CWG" may be more ideal. >>> >>> On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to >>> form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring >>> future. >>> >>> Regards >>> 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a >>> quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a >>> dialout. >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: >>> >>> #3 might be worth exploring further. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM >>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck >>> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of >>> the "Names Community" >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for these very helpful comments. >>> >>> >>> >>> We may be overthinking things a bit. >>> >>> >>> >>> The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and >>> has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report >>> and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of >>> the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail >>> of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new >>> understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on >>> this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope. >>> >>> >>> >>> Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, >>> with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a >>> delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken >>> by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups. >>> >>> >>> >>> Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled >>> by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the >>> methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG >>> representatives. >>> >>> >>> >>> ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that >>> of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the >>> oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight >>> of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and >>> in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not >>> all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory. >>> >>> >>> >>> At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering >>> Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing >>> the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group >>> that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is >>> probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they >>> idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates >>> in my mind are: >>> >>> 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. The CSC >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM >>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck >>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Greg Shatan >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of >>> the "Names Community" >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Greg, >>> > >>> > >>> > I see it as two steps: 1) define the community; >>> >>> SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's >>> a good start: >>> >>> “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including >>> individuals and organizations.” >>> >>> 2) decide who can best represent that community. >>> >>> SO: I see two aspects here: >>> >>> 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I >>> believe this should be ICANN >>> >>> 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the >>> chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG. >>> >>> > >>> Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to >>> accurately do their job. >>> > >>> SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it >>> has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global >>> community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including >>> those who are not members/participants of CWG. >>> >>> Regards >>> > >>> > >>> > Chuck >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM >>> > To: Gomes, Chuck >>> > Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >>> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of >>> the "Names Community" >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Chuck, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks for getting the ball rolling. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a >>> practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify >>> and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is >>> driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various >>> actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way >>> the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the >>> Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we >>> need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group >>> of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of >>> this Agreement. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Consider the following: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > How would the community you suggest (All current and future >>> stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and >>> organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have >>> correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or >>> group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight >>> of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global >>> Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names >>> Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various >>> existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will >>> adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising >>> stewardship and accountability functions. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol >>> Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional >>> Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider >>> how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. >>> Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following >>> parallel definitions: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP >>> address numbers including individuals and organizations >>> > >>> > RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol >>> parameters including individuals and organizations >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far >>> broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community >>> Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. >>> Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of >>> those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger >>> communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Greg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions. >>> > >>> > · I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name >>> community out. >>> > >>> > · Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the >>> ‘Names Community’. >>> > >>> > · It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a >>> structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a >>> structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the >>> ‘Names Community’. >>> > >>> > · A general definition may be the best way to go, one that >>> doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will >>> likely leave some out. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of >>> Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome >>> critique of my thoughts and my suggestion. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Chuck >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >>> s(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan >>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM >>> > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >>> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the >>> "Names Community" >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The CWG >>> > All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, >>> GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG >>> > An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the >>> CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) >>> > GNSO and ccNSO >>> > GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC >>> > GNSO, ccNSO and GAC >>> > GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC >>> > Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations >>> > The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions >>> represented on the CSC) >>> > The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily >>> acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) >>> > Any other combination of ICANN-created structures >>> > An existing non-ICANN-created structure >>> > A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal. On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future. Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: #3 might be worth exploring further. Chuck *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Thank you for these very helpful comments. We may be overthinking things a bit. The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope. Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups. Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives. ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory. At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are: 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. The CSC Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested. Chuck *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Greg Shatan *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Hello, Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Greg, > > > I see it as two steps: 1) define the community; SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” 2) decide who can best represent that community. SO: I see two aspects here: 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG. > Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job. > SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG. Regards > > > Chuck > > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" > > > > Chuck, > > > > Thanks for getting the ball rolling. > > > > Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer. > > > > The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement. > > > > Consider the following: > > > > How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ? > > > > Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community? > > > > As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions. > > > > As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions: > > > > Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP address numbers including individuals and organizations > > RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters including individuals and organizations > > > > While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community. > > > > Greg > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions. > > · I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name community out. > > · Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the ‘Names Community’. > > · It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’. > > · A general definition may be the best way to go, one that doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out. > > > > Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion. > > > > Chuck > > > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" > > > > 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: > > > > The CWG > All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG > An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) > GNSO and ccNSO > GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC > GNSO, ccNSO and GAC > GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC > Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations > The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) > The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) > Any other combination of ICANN-created structures > An existing non-ICANN-created structure > A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

6 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 2, 2016

Sept. 2, 2016

Dear All, The signing I believe that if we create an entity labelled , "Names Community" then that community will decide who should sign. If the community decides that ICANN would be the signatory entity , then there must be all legal process in place.to authorize ICANN ( CHAIRMAN OF THE Board or CEO & President. As for oversight activities, I am not sure whether CWG could do that a) this group does not eternal life and b) it does not have legal character thus we should find another way to do that. Perhaps we should task the legal counsel to suggest options Moreover, in regard with the issue that which entities could be considered as constituencies of CWG, I think the answer is clear since CWG charter was established and agreed by six chartering organizations thus those six chartering organizations should form the membership of CWG and establish an unincorporated associated among themselves to become a legal entity to decide on legal matters , stand before the cout and perform other legal obligations and discharge relevant responsibilities Kavouss Regards 2016-09-02 12:34 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear All,then the signing > I believe that if we create an entity labelled , "Names Community" then > that community will decide who should sign. If the community decides that > ICANN would be the signatory entity , then there must be all legal process > in place.to authorize ICANN ( CHAIRMAN OF THE Board or CEO & President. > As for oversight activities, I am not sure whether CWG could do that a) > this group does not eternal life and b) it does not have legal character > thus we should find another way to do that. > Perhaps we should task the legal counsel to suggest options > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-09-01 18:53 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hello, >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: >> > >> > Greg, >> > >> > >> > I see it as two steps: 1) define the community; >> >> SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's >> a good start: >> >> “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including >> individuals and organizations.” >> >> 2) decide who can best represent that community. >> >> SO: I see two aspects here: >> >> 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe >> this should be ICANN >> >> 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the >> chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG. >> >> > >> Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to >> accurately do their job. >> > >> SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it >> has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global >> community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including >> those who are not members/participants of CWG. >> >> Regards >> >> > >> > >> > Chuck >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM >> > To: Gomes, Chuck >> > Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the >> "Names Community" >> > >> > >> > >> > Chuck, >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks for getting the ball rolling. >> > >> > >> > >> > Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a >> practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify >> and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer. >> > >> > >> > >> > The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is >> driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various >> actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way >> the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the >> Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we >> need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group >> of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of >> this Agreement. >> > >> > >> > >> > Consider the following: >> > >> > >> > >> > How would the community you suggest (All current and future >> stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and >> organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ? >> > >> > >> > >> > Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly >> defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of >> groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community? >> > >> > >> > >> > As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight >> of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global >> Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names >> Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various >> existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will >> adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising >> stewardship and accountability functions. >> > >> > >> > >> > As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol >> Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional >> Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider >> how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. >> Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following >> parallel definitions: >> > >> > >> > >> > Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP >> address numbers including individuals and organizations >> > >> > RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol >> parameters including individuals and organizations >> > >> > >> > >> > While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far >> broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community >> Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. >> Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of >> those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger >> communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community. >> > >> > >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions. >> > >> > · I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name >> community out. >> > >> > · Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the >> ‘Names Community’. >> > >> > · It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a >> structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a >> structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the >> ‘Names Community’. >> > >> > · A general definition may be the best way to go, one that >> doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will >> likely leave some out. >> > >> > >> > >> > Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of >> Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome >> critique of my thoughts and my suggestion. >> > >> > >> > >> > Chuck >> > >> > >> > >> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >> s(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM >> > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the >> "Names Community" >> > >> > >> > >> > 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: >> > >> > >> > >> > The CWG >> > All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, >> SSAC) but not acting through the CWG >> > An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the >> CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) >> > GNSO and ccNSO >> > GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC >> > GNSO, ccNSO and GAC >> > GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC >> > Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations >> > The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions >> represented on the CSC) >> > The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily >> acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) >> > Any other combination of ICANN-created structures >> > An existing non-ICANN-created structure >> > A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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

Notes, Recordings, Transcript for CWG IANA Meeting ##90 - 1 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 2, 2016

Sept. 2, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #90 on 1 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9hOsAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION (ICANN Legal / Sidley): provide CWG with a revised version of the Naming functions agreement including today's points before next CWG call. * Suggestion is to submit redlined version as CWG's comment to the Public Comment after next call (Sept 08) * ACTION (Sidley): propose some revised language on the basis of the feedback received by the group today. * ACTION (staff): forward CWG invitation to Sidley. Notes 1. Status Update (Chairs) * Sidley working directly with ICANN Legal on the Naming functions agreement * Key objective for today's call is to resolve remaining issues with the Naming functions agreement, and the IANA IPR agreement (signatory and CCG representatives) 2. Implementation Update (Trang) * Status update slide presented by Trang 3. Key Issues 3.1. Naming Functions Agreement * Walk-thru Issues list produced by Sidley * A1: no objections, considered closed * A2: no objections, considered closed * A3: alternative language has been proposed by Becky Burr, and further alternative language by Chuck/Milton. Proposed revised wording should include changing "apply" to "consult". Group adopts revised wording. ACTION (ICANN Legal): conform other sections of the agreement that have the same language * A4: no objections, considered closed * A5: no objections, considered closed * A6: no objections, considered closed * A7: discussed the role of the ombudsman as described in the CWG proposal. Group is ok with suppressing the Ombudsman from Phase 2 (no changes to 8.1.b needed). Considered closed. * A8: no objections, considered closed * A9: no objections, considered closed * A10: no objections, considered closed ACTION (ICANN Legal / Sidley): provide CWG with a revised version of the Naming functions agreement including today's points before next CWG call. * Suggestion is to submit redlined version as CWG's comment to the Public Comment after next call (Sept 08) 3.2 IANA IPR * Reviewed letter of instruction drafted by Sidley, designating ICANN as counterparty representing the Naming community for signature of the Community agreement. * Remaining open issues: definition of the Names Community, and designation of CCG representatives. * Definition of the Names community: Greg Shatan provided a summary of the discussion initiated in the mailing list. * Suggestion to nominate initial CCGs from the CWG * Suggestion to have CWG act on this as long as it exists, then possibly the EC. * Suggestion to fill in the blank in the letter by "CWG on behalf of the chartering organizations". * Several objections to designating the CSC. * Suggestion to use PTI board. * Suggestion to use SO/ACs . Which ones? - the chartering organizations, potentially represented by their chairs. ACTION (Sidley): propose some revised language on the basis of the feedback received by the group today. * CCGs need to be selected by September 30th. 5. AOB * Next CWG call: 08 Sep 16 @14:00 UTC. ACTION (staff): forward CWG invitation to Sidley.

1 0

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] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Trang Nguyen Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

All, Attached is an updated table of issues, with the topic of specific reference to Section 1.3 of the 2005 GAC Principles added for discussion. Best, Trang From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48 PM To: "CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement All, Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review. Best, Trang From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN's response to the comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other CWG participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out. Although the chart appears lengthy, that is merely because it contains the historical context of discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on the call tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN's proposed handling of the matters on the chart. Thank you, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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

FW: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
by Yuko Green Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, I am forwarding this e-mail from Sidley regarding the signatory for the IANA IPR community agreement. Regards, Yuko From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Hofheimer, Joshua T. Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 9:06 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; jrobinson(a)afilias.info; 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Subject: [client com] Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Burr, Becky Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

I understand that deletion would be problematic from the GAC’s perspective, which is why we offered the alternative language. But I disagree with your point on the “policy” issue. All of the other references reflect either formal ICANN policy (RFC 1591 and the FOI) and formal ICANN policy processes. I could live with something that removed the GAC principles from the “policy” list and added a separate reference to the GAC Principles where applicable by its terms. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>" <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: AW: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement I don’t think that would be very helpful. In addition, I don’t think that 4.7 is restricted to formal “policies” as such (those are covered under (a) as I read the section) , but also to important elements developed by parts of the community in this important environment that affects ICANN/IANA, ccTLDs, communities and Governments. As a fellow lawyer I still do not understand why the specific reference to 1.3 of the GAC Principles is needed, when the wording already says that they should be applied “where applicable”. Thanks and regards Jorge Von: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 17:08 An: Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:deberg@Nkom.no>>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and why it is important. There is a fundamental problem with the reference to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions Agreement. Section 4.7 lists the “policies” that IANA is required to apply. Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice – but they are not ICANN policy. They have never been considered by any of the policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and they have not been adopted by the ICANN Board. The ccTLD participants who offered the revised wording attempted to address the problem adding a clear link back to the GAC’s own language in Section 1.3. Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from the list of applicable “policies.” J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Lindeberg>, Elise <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement +1, Jorge Elise Fra:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21 Til: trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement Thanks for this info. May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on 4.7. (how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently ignores the comments made by several members and participants of this group, while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants? Thanks and regards Jorge Von:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Trang Nguyen Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49 An: CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement All, Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review. Best, Trang From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN’s response to the comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other CWG participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out. Although the chart appears lengthy, that is merely because it contains the historical context of discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on the call tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN’s proposed handling of the matters on the chart. Thank you, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw…> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Trang Nguyen Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

All, Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review. Best, Trang From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN's response to the comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other CWG participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out. Although the chart appears lengthy, that is merely because it contains the historical context of discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on the call tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN's proposed handling of the matters on the chart. Thank you, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

5 4