- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

It is proposing a lot more than high-level principles. It is a roadmap for replacement of the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement. Alan At 18/08/2015 03:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji 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

1 0

NTIA Blog Update
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Hi all, This is relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, and the CWG-Stewardship work by extension. Here is the original link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition. The text of the blog is copied below for your convenience. An Update on the IANA Transition August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling The Internet¹s 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 Internet¹s domain name system (DNS). When we announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition -key-internet-domain-name-functions> 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_ notice_08102015.pdf> , 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 NTIA¹s 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 posal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf> 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.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Thanks for the share Grace. Briefly looking through the document seem to indicate the only disadvantage of leaving the trademarks to ICANN is the unlikely case of bankruptcy. Will it not be be logical to count the disadvantages of each scenarios and be done with this trademark issues ;-) Regards On 5 Aug 2015 4:38 pm, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear all, This legal input was sent to the Client Committee earlier today. Best, Grace From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sharon Flanagan < sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:05 AM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] IPR Memo Dear All, Attached is a memo on the IPR issue under the three ownership structures. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Best regards, Holly, Josh and Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

12 44

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG SLE-WG -- 17 August 2015
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG SLE-WG on 17 August 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/PJE0Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Notes Notes/Action Items 1. Introduction: . Lise of attendees (per Adobe room) + Adam Smith on audio . 12 meetings of SLEWG subgroup. . Comprised of Kim Davies (ICANN-IANA), Adam Smith (SLA expert from CDNS); Bernard Turcotte for faciliatation. 2. Review of the Word document Walkthrough presented by Kim Davies 3. Review of Excel spreadsheet Next steps per issue identified below: * Issue #1: DTA Working group to redraft the background section. * Issue #2: Verify that the language in the document is synchronized with the language in the flowchart. * Issue #3: Proposed language is accepted. * Issue #4: measure and report catV but no SLE * Issue #5: same as #4 * Issue #6: each run of test is a separate SLE measuring point * Issue #7: No merge. * Issue #8: no need for independent measurement * Issue #9: current version of doc ok for all * Issue #10: all agreed with suggestion * Issue #11: no resolution - mailing list discussion * Issue #12: agree with suggestion * Issue #13: agree * Issue #14: SLEWG to review tables proposed by Kim * Issue #15: no resolution - mailing list discussion * Issue #16: agreed Documents <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53776700/DTA_SLE_20150806-… tionDate=1439838571046&api=v2> DTA_SLE_20150806-1.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53776700/DTA_SLE_Outstandi…. pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1439838584471&api=v2> DTA_SLE_Outstanding_Issues_AS Response.pdf

1 0

FW: The CRISP Team observation on IPR
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: 17 August 2015 17:08 Subject: The CRISP Team observation on IPR Dear Jonathan and Lise, I'd appreciate it if you would help us share this with the CWG. As others have expressed in a seperate thread, it's great to see the CWG discussions are now moving towards consensus. Talk to you in a few hours. Thanks, Izumi & Nurani --- Dear CWG members, Attached is the CRISP Team observation on IPR. It is not fully brushed up nor articulate in terms of wording, as the CRISP Team wanted to deliver this to the CWG as early as possible, but all the points to be shared with the CWG are covered. We hope this serves as a reference in your discussions, and we would be happy to provide any additional information, clarifications needed for discussions in the CWG. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team

2 1

ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Dear all, Steve Crocker posted the text of this announcement to the mailing list a few days ago, and the announcement on the ICANN website was posted Saturday. Here is the link and text for your reference: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en. ICANN supports the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) proposal and the underlying proposals from the Community Working Group (CWG), the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team and the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) working group. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) component of the proposal. The Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANAFunctions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain. During the transition, 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 thatICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANNwill maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANAFunctions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing from anyone in the community.

1 0

ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR)
by Steve Crocker Aug. 16, 2015

Aug. 16, 2015

The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, 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 IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community.

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

Although highly unlikely and perhaps preventable by contractual terms, the IETF Trust at some point in the future could stop ICANN and PTI from using the IANA TM and the iana.org domain name. That is NOT equivalent to stopping ICANN from being the Steward of the IANA Names Function (even if we have to rename it the Mork&Mindy (*) Names Function). The name does not make the function. Alan (*) Mork & Minday was the name of a Television program starting Robin Williams, about 35 years ago - very good show. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mork_%26_Mindy. At 13/08/2015 06:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >An entity external to ICANN, taking over the IANA brand and >identity, leaving ICANN as a mere licensee, entering into a contract >with ICANN where that external entity exercises oversight and >control over IANA services (including the ability to find ICANN in >default of that contract and ultimately the ability to enter into a >contract with someone other than ICANN for those services). > > >We had a name for that entity in our first draft proposal. Contract Co. > >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by Greg Shatan Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

Julie, I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered subject to review and comment. Greg Shatan On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi Leon, > > Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when having > a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 (d) the > following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw: > > "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget > after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come into > effect." > In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or > veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the ICANN > Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. I had > not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used for such a > purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or budgets). > > I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is para > 381 on page 58: > > 1. > > 381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the ability > to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general > and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after > they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and > reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget or the > IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or operating plan. The > petition would state which Budget or plan was being subject to veto. A > separate petition is required for each Budget or plan being challenged. > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word > ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix. > > Cheers, Julie > > > On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx');>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the > interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work > forward. > > The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope > of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is > independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we > can begin crafting ourselves. > > If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you > want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke) > > Best regards, > > > León > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan(a)sidley.com');>> > *Asunto: **[client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix* > *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5 > *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');>> > > > Dear All, > > Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes > that relate to CWG’s final proposal. > > Could you please forward to the CWG? > > Thanks > > *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* > Partner > > *Sidley Austin LLP*555 California Street > Suite 2000 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan(a)sidley.com');> > www.sidley.com > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** > > <209588099_1.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cwg-client(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

7 7

Upcoming Q4 Stakeholder Call on 20 August at 14:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Dear all, As you know, ICANN has an Quarterly Stakeholder Calls. This Q4 call is next week on 20 August at 14:00 UTC (our next CWG-Stewardship meeting follows at 17:00 UTC the same day). The agenda and registration information is available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-30-en. Even if you are not able to attend the call live, it¹s good to register so you get sent the direct link for the recording later. Best, Grace

1 0