- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft Comment Letter and Updated Bylaws Matrix
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

Dear all, Here is the updated bylaws matrix and the draft to comment letter sent to the client committee today from Sydley. Please read the email below and both documents as preparation for item 3 and 4 on the agenda for the CWG meeting tomorrow. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Flanagan, Sharon Sendt: 9. september 2015 00:02 Til: Client Committee Emne: [client com] Draft Comment Letter and Updated Bylaws Matrix Dear All, Attached please find: 1. An updated ICANN bylaws matrix, clean and marked against the original draft; and 2. A draft comment letter from CWG to CCWG to the CCWG’s 2nd draft proposal. In addition, given the recent discussion on the appeals mechanism, we thought it might be helpful to have all of the references to the appeals mechanism from the final CWG proposal in one place (see below for those excerpts). Best regards, Holly and Sharon Extracts from Final CWG Proposal (June 11, 2015): Para 106: The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision. Specifically, the proposed legal structure and overall CWG-Stewardship proposal requires ICANN accountability in the following respects: … 6. Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. Para 160: The CWG-Stewardship recommends not including any appeal mechanism that would apply to ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal. For further information, see Annex O. Para 194: The CWG-Stewardship’s proposed changes are to be implemented after NTIA approval of the IANA Stewardship Transition plan. Some changes are ready to be implemented, and others may require further assessment by the ICG as they may affect and be of interest to other communities involved in the IANA Stewardship Transition. For all changes, including changes that do not require further assessment by the ICG, the community will work with ICANN in implementation. The CWG-Stewardship expects that the following implementation items could be completed in approximately three to four months, in accordance with the advice of independent legal counsel: (1) identifying the ICANN assets that relate to the IANA functions to be assigned to PTI and assigning those assets to PTI pursuant to an assignment agreement to be entered into between ICANN and PTI, (2) incorporating PTI and drafting the PTI governance documents (i.e., articles of incorporation and bylaws) and (3) drafting, negotiating and finalizing the ICANN-PTI Contract.35 The CWG-Stewardship has attempted an initial list of elements for implementation as follows: … · Appeal mechanism: This have been requested of the CCWG-Accountability as part of a key dependency with the CCWG-Accountability as soon as their work is finalized. Annex O: While the CWG-Stewardship’s 1 December, 2014 draft proposal contained an appeal mechanism that would have applied to ccTLD delegation and redelegations, some question arose as to the level of support within the ccTLD community on aspects of this proposal (see below). Design Team B was formed to assess whether there might be sufficient consensus within the ccTLD community on such an appeal mechanism. DT-B decided to undertake a survey of the ccTLD community to assess this (see the survey and the results summarized below). After informing the ccTLD community about the upcoming survey, it was sent to the ‘ccTLD World’ list, the most comprehensive list of the managers of the 248 ccTLDs on March 23, 2015 with responses accepted to 3 April 2015. Overall, responses on behalf of just 28 managers were received (see below). Such a low level of response was judged to be an insufficient basis to provide a mandate for the inclusion of an appeal mechanism in the CWG-Stewardship’s proposal. While acknowledging the limitations of drawing any conclusions from a survey with such a low response rate, it is nevertheless worthwhile pointing out that these limited responses tended to reinforce the overall recommendation. While 93% of respondents (Q.1) believe there is a need for an appeal mechanism, only 58% (Q.2) believe that it should be developed and introduced now as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition and 73% (Q.3) agreed that it should be developed and introduced after the IANA Stewardship Transition has taken place. Questions designed to probe the level of consensus on the parameters of such an appeal mechanism (see Q.5 – Q.9) elicited no consensus suggesting that it would take considerable time for the ccTLD community to come to a consensus view on the details of an appeal mechanism. Some 71% of respondents (Q.3) indicated that they would not wish to see the design of such a mechanism delay the finalization of the IANA Stewardship Transition. Survey of ccTLD Managers on Need for Appeal Mechanism for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations On 1 December 2014, the Cross Community Working Group on NTIA Stewardship Transition issued a draft proposal which contained a proposal for an “independent appeals panel”: “Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) - The CWG-Stewardship recommends that all IANA actions which affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database be subject to an independent and binding appeals panel. The Appeals Mechanism should also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies are applied. This need not be a permanent body, but rather could be handled the same way as commercial disputes are often resolved, through the use of a binding arbitration process using an independent arbitration organization (e.g., ICDR, ICC, AAA) or a standing list of qualified people under rules promulgated by such an organization.” There exists in the ccTLD community an apparent lack of consensus on the question of the introduction of an ‘appeals mechanism’ in respect of ccTLD delegations and redelegations. At ICANN 51 in Los Angeles an overwhelming majority of ccTLD representatives at the 15 October 2014 ccNSO meeting indicated their wish for an ‘appeal mechanism’ as part of the IANA transition, though what was meant by ‘an appeal mechanism’ was not defined. In a survey of all ccTLD managers undertaken in November 2014, 94% of respondents agreed that ‘if the IANA operator does not perform well or abuses its position, the affected ccTLD should have the opportunity to (have access to) an independent and binding appeal process’. The expression of need resulted in the appeal mechanism proposal that the CWG-Stewardship released on 1 December 2014. The proposal indicates that such a mechanism could be used in disputes over the consistency of ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions. A survey was undertaken in January of this year of CWG-Stewardship members and participants (this includes representation from many communities, not just ccTLD managers) on many aspects of the CWG-Stewardship’s 1 December proposal. It found that 97% of respondents agreed that, “ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy”. However when questions were posed about potential specific parameters of such an appeal mechanism support for it was reduced. For example, only 54% of respondents agreed that “ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and redelegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy, even if the operator is not a party involved in the delegation or redelegation”. In addition, only 60% of respondents agreed that, “Governments should have standing to appeal any ccTLD delegation or redelegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws”. This information suggests that while there may be support for an appeal mechanism in general, consensus may be difficult to achieve on some of the important aspects of such a mechanism, including: · Who would ‘have standing’ to appeal decisions, · What aspects of decisions might be subject to an appeal, · Whether the scope should be limited to determining whether the process followed was complete and fair, · Whether the dispute resolution panel would have the authority to substitute its own view on a delegation, for example, direct that the incumbent manager be retained rather than a proposed new manager, or · Be limited to requiring that the delegation process be repeated. As a consequence, this survey is intended to determine whether they might be sufficient consensus within the ccTLD community as a whole to seek a binding appeal mechanism and if so, whether this should be sought as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process. [The remainder of Annex O consists of the survey.] Annex I - IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions: Phase 2 (for IANA naming services only) Para 381: Should the issue not be resolved after Phase 1 [Initial remedial process for IANA naming functions], the following escalation mechanisms will be made available to direct customers, the IFO and the ICANN Ombudsman: [FN 53] a) If issue is not addressed, the complainant (direct customer), IFO or the ICANN Ombudsman may request mediation. [FN 54] b) CSC is notified of the issue by complainant and/or the IANA Functions Operator. CSC reviews to determine whether the issue is part of a persistent performance issue and/or is an indication of a possible systemic problem. If so, the CSC may seek remediation through the IANA Problem Resolution Process (see Annex J). c) The complainant (direct customer) may initiate an Independent Review Process or pursue other applicable legal recourses that may be available, if the issue is not addressed. [FN 53: Non-direct customers, including TLD organizations,that are of the view that an issue has not been addressed through Phase 1 may escalate the issue to the ICANN Ombudsman or via the applicable liaisons to the CSC to Phase 2.] [FN 54: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that as part of the implementation of this proposal, ICANN Staff explore possible approaches with regards to mediation such as, for example, Section 5.1 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en) Draft Proposed Term Sheet (Annex S): ESCALATION MECHANISMS (IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process) · Phase 1: If anyone experiences an issue with PTI’s delivery of IANA naming functions, the complainant can send an email to PTI, which will escalate the complaint internally as required. This process is open to anyone, including individuals, registries, ccTLD regional organizations and ICANN SO/ACs. · Phase 2: If the issue identified in Phase 1 is not addressed by PTI to the reasonable satisfaction of the complainant, then complainants that are direct customers only may request mediation. ICANN and CSC will be notified of the issue and CSC will conduct a review to determine whether the issue is part of a persistent performance issue or an indication of a systemic problem. If so, the CSC may seek remediation through the Problem Resolution Process described below. This process is only open to direct customers. Non-direct customers, including TLD organizations, who have issues unresolved in Phase 1, may escalate the issues to the ombudsman or the applicable liaisons to the CSC. · The complainant may also initiate an Independent Review Process if the issue is not addressed in the steps above. [Note from Sidley: We believe this should reference “direct customers.”] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

4 4

Proposed Agenda - CWG-Stewardship Meeting 10 September 2015
by Marika Konings Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CWG-Stewardship meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 10 September at 17.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - CWG-Stewardship Meeting 10 September 2015: 1. Opening Remarks 2. 2nd reading of SLEWG output (see attached) 3. Update on legal work 4. Public Comment to CCWG-Accountability 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks

1 0

CWG IANA Stewardship comments to ICG proposal
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

CWG IANA Stewardship is submitting the following comments to ICG: The final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response to the ICG RFP, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with ICG that the CWG proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal, including the full preparation of a term sheet and a subsequent associated contract. Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, it has become apparent that further clarification on the CWG position on the IANA IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, including referring to the ICG proposal and the three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org, .com and .net) being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of 15 August 2015 on the same subject. With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet the detailed requirements and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated timelines. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs For and on behalf of the CWG

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #64 -- 3 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

Hi, this is the same notes sent last week with corrected date of meeting to 03 September 2015. Previous email had incorrect meeting date of 02 September. Thanks! ~~Brenda Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 64 on 03 September 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/D5FCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. Notes 1. Opening remarks * Calls scheduled every two weeks * Since the last meeting, the Chairs have submitted a clarification on the IANA IPR issue (to the ICG). * SLEWG has done their work -- thank you! * Client Committee has met to discuss Bylaws and an update will be provided in #3 2. Review of SLEWG output * Thank you to SLEWG for really hard work! * After ratification, IANA staff will develop plan for testing and implementation (with NTIA approval since ICANN is still under contract) * Principles were approved by the CWG earlier in they year * Key point in "Assumptions": ensure that each element of IANA's work is measured Martin Boyle questions/review: * has concerns on the process to approve changes in new regime (p.8 and p.15) -- not clear where the responsibility for authorization lies "externally". Is the external party the ICANN Board or PTI Board or another? This is particularly important in the case of ccTLD delegations. * --> for gTLDs the ICANN Board is the external party. For ccTLDs, the situation is different: third party only confirms process is followed. * Second question is about emergency changes (p.17) -- what was this just as a note and did not appear in the table? * Status tracker reporting on p. 14 -- is this a general service that can be made available to all TLDs? Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Next Steps: * Timing is of concern so Chairs will need to monitor testing & implementation * Proposal will not be re-submitted to the ICG since this work was known to be done following submission and based on principles that are in the proposal. * Formal ratification will occur at next CWG meeting. 3. Update on legal work * Client Committee has not met in a while (since 9 July), but met earlier this week to review current and potential future work * Sidley has produced a Bylaws matrix and is itimately versed with the work of the CWG and CCWG, so we'd like to request them to draft the Bylaws. * CCWG and CWG have different drafting processes: the CCWG has ICANN holding the pen on the first draft, while the CWG has Sildey holding the pen. * A coordination meeting will be held on Friday between the CWG,CCWG, Sidley and ICANN to commence work. * Sidley will track and report on whether the CWG requirements are being met, and continue to be met, by the CCWG work. * Did touch on the issue of financial control and management. Chairs have planned to follow up with ICANN on this. Sidley has requested that the detailed billing (not the overall billing) is kept confidential. The Client Committee has the option of seeing the billing confidentially, but needs authorization of the CWG to do so. Any comments? * Notes, recordings, transcripts from the meeting are posted here: <https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw> https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw. Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues IANA Functions budget: * is this subject to a veto or approval? Our intention was to have one or the other, and the CCWG has proposed the veto option. Confirming that this "veto" meets our requirements. * Martin suggests the ICANN-IFO contract contain an item about the budget to ensure responsibility * The CWG needs to be vigilant regarding the implementation. Jonathan raises the question about role of group in implementation Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Appeals mechanism: Attention given to ccTLDs ability to appeal issues (not related to delegations/redelegation until the ccTLDs determine a process for that). Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. SCWG: No action required. CCWG has reviewed the issue and aware of the community mechanism needed to apply to the SCWG in the future. 5. AOB Proposal for another CWG meeting next week at 17:00 UTC in order to address the Sidley draft of public comment submission to CCWG and ratify the SLEWG document. 6. Closing remarks Close, see you next week

1 0

Question to ICANN Directors on this list - NomCom Directors
by Christopher Wilkinson Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

Good evening: Allow me to say that I find that Alan's questions, below, are quite pertinent to this discussion, and I trust that some of the Board members on the List may decide to respond in the light of their personal experiences. I would also raise a specific point regarding "CCWG proposal Section 7.3" about removing individual ICANN Board members: There, it is proposed that any Supporting Organisation or Advisory Committee (SO/AC) may initiate the process to remove an individual Director appointed by the Nominating Committee, That is not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. It is a fundamental objective of the internal governance of ICANN that there is a permanent and effective balance between the interests of the functional/operational communities and the public interest. This is most important in the light of ICANN's regulatory responsibilities respecting fair competition, users' interests and international and local law. Some of these responsibilities have significant financial and economic consequences. 2. When the Nominating Committee process was initially established in 2002, it was as a successor to, and a surrogate for, the election of ICANN Board members by Internet users. The NomCom process was accepted at the time by the ICANN Community as a feasible method of creating and re-enforcing the necessary balance in ICANN's internal governance. Thus, the idea that any particular Supporting Organisation may threaten to attack individual independent Board members - appointed by the NomCom - from which they happen to dissent, would seriously undermine the independence of NomCom appointed Directors as well as the intrinsic balance of powers and interests within the ICANN structure. 3. Since the Section 7.3 proposal, if implemented, would further compromise the balance between commercial interests and the public interest in ICANN, it would inevitably give rise to additional demands for enhanced governmental influence within ICANN through the GAC. I trust that CCWG and CWG shall reconsider their positions in this regard. Regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: For the attention of the Co-Chairs of CCWG and CWG: I did not see this clause before. I do not know where it came from or who drafted it. It was not discussed on the conference calls which I attended, although - as you know - I have not been able to attend all of them. On 01 Sep 2015, at 23:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > This is a personal message (not on behalf of the ALAC) and targeted at the voting directors on this list. > > We have been told regularly that if the community has the power to remove individual directors, and particularly if those appointed by SO/ACs can be removed by sole action of the entity that appointed them, that this would impinge on the independence of directors and particularly, those directors threatened with the potential of removal would act differently, presumably to appease their communities or protect their right to remain an ICANN director. > > If I counted correctly, there are eleven voting directors on this list, four appointed by AC/SOs and seven by the NomCom. I think I know most of you to some extent, and some I have worked closely with or observed for quite a number of years. > > My own perspective is that if you were confronted with a situation where you had to pander to the community or do what you thought was right, it would be a moderately easy choice, and it would be to do what you thought was right. Would you consult and discuss? Certainly. Would you change your opinion in the face of a good argument, I hope so. But would you just give in to protect your position? For those of you that I know, not very likely, perhaps you would move in the opposite direction! > > If my assessment is correct, then the question becomes do we believe that SO/ACs will deliberately appoint people who are malleable and will vote as their SO/AC desires instead of making decisions on behalf of ICANN as a whole. I would contend that there is nothing to prevent them doing so now. If there is strong evidence of a problem, then we should take action regardless of changes proposed. If not, then perhaps the problem is not as large as some presume. > > Given all that, what am I misunderstanding and what is the problem with the power to remove directors, a power that I suspect will be used as often as the current board power to unilaterally remove directors and most liaisons without cause (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#VI-11) > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Question re fiduciary duties and separation
by Jordan Carter Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

Hi there I have a question which participants may recall the answer to: Is the ICANN board allowed to agree to a separation of the IANA functions operator, given its fiduciary duties to the corporation? Relatedly: Was this question explicitly addressed by the legal advisors to the CWG - and if so, where can I find that advice? I ask because I want to test the feasibility of the separation model in the ICG proposal. Many thanks for any assistance you can offer. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

7 10

Please read to prepare for call: Re: Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear all, Paul Kane had circulated the agreed SLEWG output earlier this week, but I wanted to include it in the agenda email to ensure that everyone would review the document in preparation for the meeting. Please refer to the attached document (also posted on the Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/IANA%20Service%20 Level%20Expectations%20-%20AGREED.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=14410226620 00&api=v2> ). Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:59 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 3 September at 11:00 UTC: Agenda: 1. Opening remarks 2. Review of SLEWG output 3. Update on legal work 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues 5. AOB 6. Closing remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear All, Thank you for your comments on list to the draft of CWG position on IANA IPR. Jonathan and I have carefully reviewed the comments, and revised the text accordingly. Today we have sent the correspondence below to the ICG on the subject of the IANA IPR. Best regards, Lise Fra: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16 Til: alissa(a)cooperw.in Cc: Patrik Fältström (paf(a)netnod.se) Mohamed El Bashir (mbashir(a)mbash.net) Emne: CWG Position on IANA IPR Dear Alissa and ICG Colleagues, As you know, the final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response to your ICG RFP, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the CWG proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWGs intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal, including the full preparation of a term sheet and a subsequent associated contract. Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, it has become apparent that further clarification on the CWG position on the IANA IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, including referring to the ICG proposal and the three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org, .com and .net) being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of 15 August 2015 on the same subject. With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet the detailed requirements and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated timelines. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs For and on behalf of the CWG

1 0

Agenda for meeting on Thursday at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 3 September at 11:00 UTC: Agenda: 1. Opening remarks 2. Review of SLEWG output 3. Update on legal work 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues 5. AOB 6. Closing remarks Best, Grace

1 0

FINAL - Agreed text for IANA Service Level
by Paul M Kane - CWG Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

(apologies for cross posting) Dear all, I am delighted to attach the agreed Service Level Expectation document, containing the specifics of what ICANN/IANA has agreed to monitor and report. I would like to thank the members of the working group, (Elaine Pruis, Jeffrey Eckhaus, Jeff Neuman, Patricio Poblete, Jay Daley, Adam Smith and ICANN/IANA; Kim Davies, Bernard Turcotte, Elise Gerich, David Conrad) for their dedication and professionalism over the past months. They contributed to over 300 hours of discussions, 8 full WG meetings, 15 sub-group meeting and countless emails ... and it is with pleasure I advise that the first phase is done. I'd also like to thank ICANN staff for their support in facilitating the WG discussions. ICANN/IANA will now plan the scope of work to implement this SLE, operating the service in a test phase/parallel mode to start the necessary real-world data capture. Please circulate the agreed SLE document as you consider appropriate which demonstrates ICANN/IANA's commitment to enhanced reporting and transparency post transition which I am confident will be welcomed by the global community. Kind regards Paul Kane SLE WG Chair.

3 3