- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Blog: Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-9-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> Deadlines for two key public comment periods fast approaching The deadlines for the public comment periods for the two proposals that will soon be forwarded to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ) are fast approaching, with just over one week left for stakeholders to submit their views on the contents of the proposals: 1. The Consolidated IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> by the ICG 2. The 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> of the CCWG-Accountability In addition, to enable the community the necessary time to prepare for the transition of stewardship after the proposals have been accepted by the community and NTIA, NTIA has announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> that it will extend the IANA Functions Contract with ICANN for one year, ending 30 September 2016. Consolidated IANA stewardship proposal The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) public comment period <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> for the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> ends on 8 September 2015. The proposal and the form for submitting comments are now available in all 6 United Nations languages plus Portuguese (see links below). To date, there have been twenty-four responses received <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal -public-archive-of-submitted-comments/> . The comment period will close on 8 September 2015. How to submit a public comment before the 8 September deadline 1. Use the online form (AR <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=ar> | EN <https://comments.ianacg.org/form> | ES <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=es> | FR <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=fr> | PT <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=pt> | RU <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=ru> | ZH <https://comments.ianacg.org/form?lang=zh> ) 2. After you have submitted the form, you will receive an automatically generated email asking you to click a link to confirm your submission. Your comments will then be posted to the archive of public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> . 3. 4. Send an email to public-comments(a)ianacg.org using the optional template (AR <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-AR.d ocx> | EN <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/public-input-template-EN.docx> | ES <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-ES.d ocx> |FR <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-FR.d ocx> | PT <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-PT.d oc> | RU <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-RU.d ocx> | ZH <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/ICG-public-comment-web-form-ZH.d ocx> ) 5. After submitting your comments you will receive two emails: the first confirms receipt of your email; the second confirms your comments have been posted to the comments archive <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal -public-archive-of-submitted-comments/> . Key links 1. IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: AR <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-AR.pdf> | EN <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> | ES <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-ES.pdf> | FR <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-FR.pdf> | PT <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-PT.pdf> | RU <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-RU.pdf> | ZH <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-ZH.pdf> 2. Call for public comments <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> 3. Archive of public comments received <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal -public-archive-of-submitted-comments/> 4. Archives of webinar briefings on the proposal: > * Slides: AR > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-AR.pdf> | EN > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09.pdf> | ES > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-ES.pdf> | FR > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-FR.pdf> | PT > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-PT.pdf> | RU > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-RU.pdf> | ZH > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… > mmary_09-ZH.pdf> > * 6 August Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p96rxk6gqgo/> > * 6 August audio recording: AR > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_AR.mp3> | EN > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_EN.mp3> | ES > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_ES.mp3> | FR > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_FR.mp3> | PT > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_PT.mp3> | RU > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_RU.mp3> | ZH > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_1_ZH.mp3> > * 6 August transcript: EN > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-webinar-06aug15-… > .pdf> | ES > <https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/transcript-icg-webinar-06aug15-… > .pdf> | FR > <https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/transcript-icg-webinar-06aug15-… > .pdf> > * 7 August Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p23k24s5pkm/> > * 7 August audio recording: EN > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_EN.mp3> | ES > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_ES.mp3> | FR > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_FR.mp3> | PT > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_PT.mp3> | RU > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_RU.mp3> | ZH > <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/audio/20150806_ICG_Webin… > _Interpretation_2_ZH.mp3> CCWG-Accountability The public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> for the 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) closes on 12 September 2015. The proposal is now available in all 6 United Nations languages plus Portuguese (see links below). To date, nine public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> have been received. One of the submissions, from theICANN Board <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00006. html> , notes that the Board will develop its own set of comprehensive comments and suggestions on the proposal based on: * Briefings sought from ICANN's external counsel's inputs on the proposal. The briefing <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdf5bBqNG P8Fj.pdf> , by Jones Day, has been submitted to the public comment mailing list * Analysis by independent third-party experts on governance on the governance impacts of the proposal, including considerations of how the proposal may impact the balance of the stakeholders in the multistakeholder model within ICANN today A subset of ICANN Board members met with ICANN staff members during the week of 24 August to discuss the CCWG-Accountability proposal. Following this, two teleconferences were organized for the CCWG-Accountability and the ICANN Board to discuss the proposal in more detail. The first teleconference <https://community.icann.org/x/dYVYAw> will be held on 31 August, where the CCWG-Accountability will brief the Board on the 2nd draft proposal. The second teleconference <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316> , to be held 2 September, will be an opportunity for the Board to share its feedback on the proposal. Observers can listen in to the teleconference via Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/> . The Board will submit additional comments based on the above inputs to the public comment forum before the comment period ends. Meanwhile, the CCWG-Accountability's legal counsel, Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin, are conducting a preliminary review of the Jones Day briefing, and hope to submit the preliminary review to the CCWG-Accountability on 1 September. How to submit a public comment before the 12 September deadline 1. Consider the CCWG-Accountability's three questions when developing your submissions > * Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's > accountability? > * Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it > transmission to Chartering Organizations? > * Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship? 2. Send an email to comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15(a)icann.org <mailto:comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15@icann.org> 3. When you receive an automatically generated email asking you to confirm your submission, please follow the instructions in the email to ensure your comments are submitted to the archive of public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> . Key links 1. 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations: AR <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-ar.pdf> | EN <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> | ES <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-es.pdf> | FR <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-fr.pdf> | PT <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-pt.pdf> | RU <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-ru.pdf> | ZH <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-zh.pdf> 2. Call for public comments <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> 3. Archive of public comments received <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> 4. Archives of webinar briefings on the proposal: > * Slides: AR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-ar.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439467911000&api=v2 > > | EN > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438709926000&api=v2> > | ES > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-es.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439467934000&api=v2 > > | FR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-fr.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439467967000&api=v2 > > | PT > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-pt.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439467987000&api=v2 > > | RU > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-ru.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439468012000&api=v2 > > | ZH > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos… > _Visual%20Summary_FINAL-ZH.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439468054000&api=v2 > > > * 4 August Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1obc580vgj/> > * 6 August audio recording: AR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_AR.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438728084000&api=v2> | > EN > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_EN.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438727588000&api=v2> | > ES > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_ES.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438727832000&api=v2> | > FR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_FR.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438728402000&api=v2> | > PT > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_PT.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438728969000&api=v2> | > RU > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_RU.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438729597000&api=v2> | > ZH > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_ZH.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1438730122000&api=v2> > * 4 August transcript: EN > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439316675000&api=v2> | > ES > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_ES.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439316713000&api=v2> | > FR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_FR.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1439317010000&api=v2> | > PT > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150804_CCWG_Acc… > ntability_Webinar_1_PT.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439316792000&api=v2> > * 7 August Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3xucqwdx73/> > * 7 August audio recording: AR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_AR.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=143895532 > 8000&api=v2> | EN > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_EN.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=143895430 > 4000&api=v2> | ES > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_ES.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=143895470 > 4000&api=v2> | FR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_FR.mp3?version=2&modificationDate=143895625 > 1000&api=v2> | PT > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_PT.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=143895756 > 8000&api=v2> | ZH > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/20150807_CCWG_Acc… > ntabiligy_Webinar_Interpretation_2_ZH.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=143895821 > 7000&api=v2> > * 25 August Adobe Connect <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1h84kefuog/> > * 25 August audio recording: AR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_AR.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440562721000&api=v2> | EN > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_EN.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440561981000&api=v2> | ES > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_ES.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440562425000&api=v2> | FR > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_FR.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440562221000&api=v2> | PT > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_PT.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440562836000&api=v2> | ZH > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54695416/20150825_CCWG_Web… > ar_3_ZH.mp3?version=1&modificationDate=1440562580000&api=v2> Extension of IANA Functions Contract On 17 August, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ) announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> that it had informed the U.S. Congress that it planned to extend the IANA Functions Contract with ICANN for one year until September 30, 2016. In the announcement, NTIA explains that: > "Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three > additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community > with the time it needs to finish its work." IANA-related intellectual property rights An area of ongoing discussion related to the ICG's Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal has to do with the future of where the IANA-related trademarks and domain names will be held – referred to in the discussions as the IANA IPR. Of the three operational community proposals, only the numbering resources community, in its proposal <http://www.nro.net/crisp-final-proposal> developed by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team), documented a concrete suggestion for keeping the holder of IANA's IPR separate from the operator of IANA functions. The CRISP Team proposal states: > "It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark > and theIANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the > IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are > used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. > From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETFTrust would be an > acceptable candidate for this role." The protocol parameters community, via the IANAPLAN working group, found this an acceptable way forward and the IETF Trust confirmed it was willing to take on the task, if requested. The names community proposal, developed by the Cross Community Working Group Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ), did not contain any specific proposal about how to handle the IPR. On 15 August, the ICANN Board announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en> that ICANN is: > "…Prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a > neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the > understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be > granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational > control of the IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANAFunctions > Operator." On their 20 August call, the CWG-Stewardship agreed that the IANA IPR can be held a by neutral third party. The CWG-Stewardship sees its position on the IANA IPR as consistent with the other two proposals. Requirements for the neutral third party can be coordinated with the other communities in implementation. The CWG-Stewardship committed to issuing a statement before the close of the ICGpublic comment. Drafting of updated ICANN Bylaws Both the proposals of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability include changes to ICANN's Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> . Below is a summary of the most recent developments: * On 11 August, Sidley Austin sent the CWG-Stewardship a draft matrix <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20 150811/dca3cacd/209588099_1-0001.pdf> of ICANN Bylaws, designated and set out in the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal. * On 19 August, the co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability formally requested <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-August/00 5051.html> ICANN's general counsel, John Jeffrey, to begin working with the CCWG-Accountability's external counsel to draft language to include the Affirmation of Commitments <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/Affirmation_of_Commitments_2009 .pdf> (AoC) reviews into ICANN Bylaws, as defined by the CCWG-Accountability and in line with the agreed-upon process (see attached for full reference). IANA stewardship in the news 27 Aug 2015The IANA Transition: The Work Ahead <https://cdt.org/blog/the-iana-transition-the-work-ahead/> , Centre for Democracy & Technology [EN] 19 Aug 2015U.S. Maintains Control Over Internet Governance for a Bit Longer <http://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/us-maintains-control-over-internet-gove rnance-for-a-bit-long#.leLOq9bPK> , Buzzfeed [EN] 18 Aug 2015Fim da supervisão da IANA pelos EUA é adiada para 2016 <http://idgnow.com.br/internet/2015/08/18/fim-da-supervisao-da-iana-pelos-eu a-e-adiada-para-2016/> , IDGNOW [PT] США сохранят за собой контроль над интернетом еще на три года <http://www.interfax.ru/business/460957> , Интерфакс [RU] Les États-Unis prolongent d'une année leur tutelle sur l'Icann <http://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-les-etats-unis-prolongent -d-une-annee-leur-tutelle-sur-l-icann-62068.html> , Le Monde Informatique [FR] 12 Aug 2015Erste Vorschläge vorgestellt <http://www.domain-recht.de/internet-politik/netzverwaltung-erste-vorschlaeg e-vorgestellt-64672.html> , Domain Recht [DE] Upcoming key dates 1 Sep 2015CCWG-Accountability teleconference #51 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 12:00 UTC 2 Sep 2015CCWG-Accountability dialogue with ICANN Board <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316> , 22:00-1:00 UTC 3 Sep 2015CWG-Stewardship Teleconference #64 <https://community.icann.org/x/D5FCAw> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 8 Sep 2015CCWG-Accountability teleconference #52 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 19:00 UTC Public Comment Period on ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> closes 10 Sep 2015ICG teleconference #22 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 5:00-06:30 UTC 12 Sep 2015Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANNaccountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> closes 15 Sep 2015CCWG-Accountability teleconference #53 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 6:00 UTC 17 Sep 2015CWG-Stewardship teleconference #65 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 18-19 Sep 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-face-to-face-meeting-for-18-19-septemb er/> , Los Angeles, CA, USA 23 Sep 2015ICG teleconference #23 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 11:00-12:30 UTC 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015 CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented toALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval. 7 Oct 2015ICG teleconference #24 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 19:00-20:30 UTC 18-22 Oct 2015ICANN 54 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> including: ICG Face-to-Face meeting and presentation of proposals forIANA stewardship and ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) to theICANN Board for subsequent transmission to the NTIA Week 1, Nov 2015ICANN Board transmits IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability (Work Stream 1) proposals to NTIA You can play a role in IANA's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 31 August 2015

1 0

Reminder: CWG-Stewardship call on Thursday at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 31, 2015

Aug. 31, 2015

Dear all, Per our schedule, we have a CWG-Stewardship meeting this Thursday 3 September at 11:00 UTC. Please let Brenda or me know if you have not received the calendar invitation. Best, Grace

1 0

CWG Position on IANA IPR
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

All, You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose: Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Please see below for such a draft. Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise -- Dear ICG, The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, 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 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 the associated contract. Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal, as well as some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG and a statement by the ICANN board, 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 all three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. The CWG is able to formally confirm that its position is consistent with that of the other ICG RFP respondents in that the CWG has no objection to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Jonathan & Lise For and on behalf of the CWG

9 26

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, >the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. > >Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I >would appreciate a substantive example. > >Alan > >At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>Alan, >> >>I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I >>do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility >>regardless how remote a chance it might be. >> >>Chuck >> >>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ >>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM >>To: CWG IANA >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism >> >>On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a >>mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring >>to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed >>Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, >>Sub-section 6 which reads: >> >> >>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. >> >>I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of >>IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole >>example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry >>should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather >>moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be >>provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and >>admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and >>not altered despite CSC and other interventions. >> >>In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address >>the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may >>never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared >>to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. >> >>I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a >>viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy >>to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision >>of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have >>the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be >>modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). >> >>I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to >>allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. >> >>Alan >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

5 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

Greg, If you go back to my original message, I suggested altering the rules of Reconsideration to include not only decisions of staff and Board, but also those of subsidiaries or fully-controlled affiliates. Yes, the is not REconsidering a prior decision of the Board, but neither is such a process looking at staff decisions. Alan At 25/08/2015 02:59 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision >that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not >relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions >or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of >the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration >process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be >a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet >the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction >as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a >"reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the >same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost >by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an >Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to >meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other >than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy >the CWG proposal. > >Greg > >On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, >*THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan > >At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For >>those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. >> >>Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I >>would appreciate a substantive example. >> >>Alan >> >>At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>>Alan, >>> >>>I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but >>>I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility >>>regardless how remote a chance it might be. >>> >>>Chuck >>> >>>From: >>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM >>>To: CWG IANA >>>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism >>> >>>On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of >>>a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was >>>referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed >>>Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, >>>Sub-section 6 which reads: >>> >>> >>>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. >>> >>>I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of >>>IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole >>>example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry >>>should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather >>>moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be >>>provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and >>>admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made >>>and not altered despite CSC and other interventions. >>> >>>In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address >>>the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may >>>never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not >>>geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. >>> >>>I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a >>>viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy >>>to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a >>>decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and >>>to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA >>>decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). >>> >>>I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to >>>allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. >>> >>>Alan >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example. Alan At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Alan, > >I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I >do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility >regardless how remote a chance it might be. > >Chuck > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM >To: CWG IANA >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism > >On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a >mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring >to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed >Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, >Sub-section 6 which reads: > > >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. > >I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of >IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example >being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT >be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The >CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it >is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their >could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered >despite CSC and other interventions. > >In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address >the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may >never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared >to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. > >I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a >viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy >to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision >of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have >the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be >modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). > >I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to >allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. > >Alan

1 0

IANA Appeal Mechanism
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads: >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. I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions. In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. Alan

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

Seun, we will have to disagree on this then. The proposal itself is neither consistent nor inconsistent with those sections of the DT-F proposal, because it is silent on them. The proposal is only addressing the mechanics of the testing and phasing out of the NTI authorization. It is am alternative methodology to section 1a. However, the Questions and Answers that follow the proposal do privide some idea of how the issues raised in 1b may play out. Section 1.b.i talks about what will happen if the NTIA is still tied to Verisign under the Cooperative Agreement past the actual moment of transition, and says there will need to be an amendment of that Cooperative Agreement. The answer to "Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?" mentions just such an amendment. Section 1.b.ii talks about what will happen should the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative agreement be dissolved at the point of transition. It is not obvious that this will happen at that point or even later, but the answer to "Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?" alludes to such a replacement. For the record, although the general understanding of the March 2014 announcement and in particular the associated Q/A (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-r…) alludes to the phase-out of the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative Agreement: >Q. What impact does this announcement have on >the cooperative agreement with Verisign? >A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are >inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign >cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root >zone file management), which would require that >NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. That does not actually SAY that the cooperative agreement will be phased out, only that the RESPONSIBILITIES under the agreement will be transitioned. Perhaps the NTIA plans to keep the Cooperative Agreement in some form for some period of time. I have no idea. The reference in the most recent questions to a new ICANN-Verisign agreement seems to imply that it will be replaced at some point. Alan At 23/08/2015 02:34 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Unless there is another document/process to >expect, I don't think the proposal is entirely >consistent with Section b (i and ii) of DT-F >report which specifically indicates what is expected of the agreement. > > From my readings, It seem the proposal attempts > to address bii of DT-F which means the RZM > transition will be completed by/before > stewardship transition (all hopefully within > next year). Doing that however will not have > addressed item b of DT-F which has to do with > the agreement between the Verisign and NTIA. > >So I don't think we should say the proposal is >generally consistent with DT-F as IMO the >agreement would be the major piece in the RZM transition. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry >(and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of >the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But >carried to an extreme. It allows the transition >to occur with no code changes and virtually no >changes in procedure other than those which will >be well tested prior to the transition. > >I think that the temporary cloning of the entire >RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making >coding or operational changes at the moment of >transition, but it *IS* following the sound >engineering practice of minimizing concurrent >changes, and specifically ones that cannot be >fully tested prior to the moment of transition. >If it had been me, I would have developed the >revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT.... > >As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing >to do with the relationship of the NTIA and >Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other >than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement). > >Alan > >At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Just to mention that Milton wrote an >>interesting blog post summary about this proposal: >> >><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic…>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic… >> >> >>Inline with determining consistency with what >>DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the >>question of whether the proposal shared by >>Larry will ultimately remove the administrative >>role NTIA. The current wording in the proposal >>does not make that clear and I think that would >>indeed determine if we are really done with >>stewardship transition or just scratching the surface. >> >>Regards >>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" >><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > wrote: >>Hello, >>Larry has just posted an update on the IANA >>transition and extension of ICANN contract. An >>item of the update is the proposal that >>addresses the administrative(middleman) role of >>NTIA in the update of the root. Although the >>CWG did not address this in its proposal due to >>scope, it highlights some high level principles >>(expectations) on this. It may be good to check >>if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. >>Regards >> >> >><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition >> >> >> >>An Update on the IANA Transition >> >> >> >>August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for >>Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling >> >>The InternetÃ¢s global multistakeholder >>communityity has made tremendous progress in >>its work to develop a proposal to transition >>the historic stewardship role NTIA has played >>related to InternetÃ¢â¬s domain name system (DNS). >>When we >><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>announced >>our intent in March 2014 to complete the >>privatization of the DNS, we noted that the >>base period of our contract with ICANN to >>perform technical functions related to the DNS, >>known as the IANA functions, expired on >>September 30, 2015. However, it has become >>increasingly apparent over the last few months >>that the community needs time to complete its >>work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. >>Government and then implement it if it is approved. >>Accordingly, in May we asked the groups >>developing the transition documents how long it >>would take to finish and implement their >>proposals. After factoring in time for public >>comment, U.S. Government evaluation and >>implementation of the proposals, the community >>estimated it could take until at least >>September 2016 to complete this process. In >>response to their feedback, we informed >>Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our >>IANA contract with ICANN for one year to >>September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have >>options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. >>This one-year extension will provide the >>community with the time it needs to finish its >>work. The groups are already far along in >>planning the IANA transition and are currently >>taking comments on their IANA transition >>proposals. As we indicated in a recent >><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_…>Federal >>Register notice, we encourage all interested >>stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. >>In preparation for the implementation phase of >>the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also >>asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >>detailing how best to remove NTIAÃ¢s >>administrative re role associated with root >>zone management, which the groups working on >>the transition were not asked to address. We >>asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >>detailing how best to do this in a manner that >>maintains the security, stability and >>resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root >>zone management system, Verisign edits and >>distributes the root zone file after it has >>received authorization to do so from NTIA. >>Verisign and ICANN have developed a >><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…>proposal >>that outlines a technical plan and testing >>regime for phasing out the largely clerical >>role NTIA currently plays in this process. The >>testing will occur in a parallel environment >>that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. >>These developments will help ensure that the >>IANA transition will be done in a manner that >>preserves the security and stability of the DNS. >>Cheers! >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Seun Ojedeji, >>Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535 >>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> >><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >> >>The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry (and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But carried to an extreme. It allows the transition to occur with no code changes and virtually no changes in procedure other than those which will be well tested prior to the transition. I think that the temporary cloning of the entire RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making coding or operational changes at the moment of transition, but it *IS* following the sound engineering practice of minimizing concurrent changes, and specifically ones that cannot be fully tested prior to the moment of transition. If it had been me, I would have developed the revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT.... As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing to do with the relationship of the NTIA and Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement). Alan At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hi, > >Just to mention that Milton wrote an interesting >blog post summary about this proposal: > ><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic…>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ic… > >Inline with determining consistency with what >DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the >question of whether the proposal shared by Larry >will ultimately remove the administrative role >NTIA. The current wording in the proposal does >not make that clear and I think that would >indeed determine if we are really done with >stewardship transition or just scratching the surface. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hello, > >Larry has just posted an update on the IANA >transition and extension of ICANN contract. An >item of the update is the proposal that >addresses the administrative(middleman) role of >NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG >did not address this in its proposal due to >scope, it highlights some high level principles >(expectations) on this. It may be good to check >if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. > >Regards > > ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition > > >An Update on the IANA Transition > > >August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for >Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling > >The Internetâs global multistakeholder >community has made tremendous progress in its >work to develop a proposal to transition the >historic stewardship role NTIA has played >related to Internetâs domain name system (DNS). > >When we ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>announced >our intent in March 2014 to complete the >privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base >period of our contract with ICANN to perform >technical functions related to the DNS, known as >the IANA functions, expired on September 30, >2015. However, it has become increasingly >apparent over the last few months that the >community needs time to complete its work, have >the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and >then implement it if it is approved. > >Accordingly, in May we asked the groups >developing the transition documents how long it >would take to finish and implement their >proposals. After factoring in time for public >comment, U.S. Government evaluation and >implementation of the proposals, the community >estimated it could take until at least September >2016 to complete this process. In response to >their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday >that we plan to extend our IANA contract with >ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond >2016, we have options to extend the contract for >up to three additional years if needed. > >This one-year extension will provide the >community with the time it needs to finish its >work. The groups are already far along in >planning the IANA transition and are currently >taking comments on their IANA transition >proposals. As we indicated in a recent ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_…>Federal >Register notice, we encourage all interested >stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. > >In preparation for the implementation phase of >the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked >Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >detailing how best to remove NTIAâs >administrative role associated with root zone >management, which the groups working on the >transition were not asked to address. We asked >Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal >detailing how best to do this in a manner that >maintains the security, stability and resiliency >of the DNS. Under the current root zone >management system, Verisign edits and >distributes the root zone file after it has >received authorization to do so from NTIA. >Verisign and ICANN have developed a ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…>proposal >that outlines a technical plan and testing >regime for phasing out the largely clerical role >NTIA currently plays in this process. The >testing will occur in a parallel environment >that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. > >These developments will help ensure that the >IANA transition will be done in a manner that >preserves the security and stability of the DNS. > >Cheers! >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 23, 2015

Aug. 23, 2015

Hello, Larry has just posted an update on the IANA transition and extension of ICANN contract. An item of the update is the proposal that addresses the administrative(middleman) role of NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG did not address this in its proposal due to scope, it highlights some high level principles (expectations) on this. It may be good to check if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. Regards http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition An Update on the IANA Transition August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling The Internet’s global multistakeholder community has made tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name system (DNS). When we announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> our intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired on September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is approved. Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_…>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone management system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it has received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have developed a proposal <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…> that outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the largely clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will occur in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be done in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

3 3