- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Seun Ojedeji July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Hi, Except the cost relating to maintaining PTI as a structure (it's board, it's subsidiary dues, committees et all) I don't think the IANA operating budget would go beyond control to warrant a community veto. That said, there are quite a number of areas that may still need to be clarified as the scope of PTI budget. Does it for instance include personnel cost, does it include related community costs like the work of the IFRT or that of CSC. Also if there arise a need to veto on IANA budget, will it be in violation of the contract terms or just because of what the community feels is right/wrong. The possibility of whether IANA budget can be presented by operational community categorisation may also be a perquisite towards answering whether a veto on IANA budget will affect the 3 operational communities. Regards On 26 Jul 2015 10:08 pm, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Martin > That was one side of the coin. > Suppose PTI in its second year of its new life decided to increase its > annual IANA Budget of precious year justified by all reasons given and > then send it to ICANN for approvals. > Supposed ICANN did not agree to that increase and established an overall > budget which does not includes the increase request by PTI/IANA .If > community objects to that what would happen ? > Do we maintain the budget of previous year which was considered by PTI > insufficient? > Kazoos > > 2015-07-26 22:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk>: > >> Hi Olivier, >> >> >> >> > “Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?” >> >> >> >> Unlikely, but, for example, PTI started to do things outside its remit, >> or started to inflate staff and directors’ salaries unduly, or demanded an >> increased budget without a reasonable process with the community and >> community buy-in. I think there might be theoretical cases where there >> might be good reason for a budget veto, but I guess that this would >> probably be a pre-cursor to a special IFR. >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> *From:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] >> *Sent:* 25 July 2015 11:09 >> *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader >> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >> >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> Comments in-line: >> >> On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle wrote: >> >> Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it >> has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes >> might work. >> >> >> >> My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA >> functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s >> budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be >> ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment >> in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a >> squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. >> >> >> My point of view is fully aligned with this. >> >> >> >> >> Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto >> powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be an open >> door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines >> (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this >> sort of power). >> >> >> >> Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: >> >> >> >> 1. The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN >> to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but >> it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be >> full separation at some stage). There is an *obligation* on ICANN to >> fund this. >> >> >> CWG IANA's DT-O dealing with IANA/PTI Funding looked at ways to have a >> very stable and predictable IANA/PTI budget. Some of us advocated to have 2 >> years' worth of IANA budget funding ready, of which one would be held in >> Escrow. This points to having a year on year IANA budget that does not >> change dramatically. I remind everyone that the primary concern for IANA is >> to ensure stable operations, year on year. Having the ability to veto the >> IANA budget, for whatever reason, without provisions that if the budget was >> vetoed and a delay would lead to passing the Fiscal Year Deadline, the IANA >> operations would still be funded, introduces instability. Indeed, why would >> any Community want to veto the IANA Budget? >> >> I do not know why the concept of a year of IANA budget being fenced for 2 >> years, including 1 year in Escrow, was not carried over by DT-O. >> >> I agree with the rest of Martin's message. >> >> >> >> >> 2. The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. >> >> >> >> In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a >> problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led to a >> more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really >> like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the >> ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the *alternative >> proposal*. >> >> >> >> If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of >> the operator, we have: >> >> >> >> a. The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational >> communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI or >> with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. >> >> >> >> b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI >> budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to >> ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI *and only for this >> purpose*. (That might, of course, require increased revenue >> requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary >> contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) >> >> >> >> c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact >> only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This >> might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the >> obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD >> sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) >> >> >> >> I *think* the alternative allows this *without* requiring a separate >> level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a >> sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of >> its normal budgeting cycle!). >> >> >> >> Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points >> correctly, Jordan. >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >> <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>] >> *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10 >> *To:* lisefuhrforwader >> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Grace >> Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> Hi Jonathan and Lise, >> >> >> Thank you for this email. >> >> >> >> From it, I understand the following: >> >> >> >> a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community >> veto procedure we have in place. >> >> >> >> b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set >> identical veto thresholds for both. >> >> >> >> c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that >> participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no >> customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. >> >> >> >> d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy >> of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, >> activity and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is >> proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a >> situation. >> >> >> >> e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have >> a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular >> transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside >> of this, but we will note it.) >> >> >> >> f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that * only *allows >> the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for >> it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. >> >> >> >> *Please note: * >> >> >> >> *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes >> - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA >> Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is >> that this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires. >> >> >> >> In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that >> led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget >> for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the >> IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. >> >> >> >> I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have >> said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not >> the alternative proposal of a separate veto. >> >> >> >> *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG >> does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. * >> >> >> >> *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?* >> >> >> >> >> >> WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h >> UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on >> this question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this >> decision out of our hands. >> >> >> >> Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are >> in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside >> the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous >> note. >> >> >> >> >> >> best >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: >> >> Hi Jordan, >> >> >> >> Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements >> to the CCWG. >> >> >> >> It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget >> in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded >> in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions >> is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the >> budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure >> to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are >> interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both >> issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to >> be taken care of in WS1. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jonathan and Lise >> >> >> >> *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle >> >> *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 >> *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly >> be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of >> unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in >> ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions >> operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I >> understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So >> long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly >> identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by >> me. >> >> >> >> However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for >> challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there >> be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would >> actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining >> funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment >> as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for >> the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA >> functions operation)? >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ >> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org >> <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck >> >> >> *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 >> *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> My personal thoughts are inserted below. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ >> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org >> <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter >> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM >> *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / >> helpful.... >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Jordan >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 >> Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment >> To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the >> IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need >> to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate >> >> >> >> The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the >> community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so >> that it can do its job. >> >> >> >> In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: >> >> - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from >> the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem >> if the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of >> the IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. >> - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA >> Budget as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is >> correct. If any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it >> would make sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. >> - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is >> proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.*[Chuck >> Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold >> might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability >> of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by >> some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so >> that services are not degraded and security is maintained. >> - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for >> earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of >> the relevant financial year.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a >> true statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community >> input is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft >> budget before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it >> until late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto >> wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days >> for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto >> process to take place. >> - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there >> had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, >> funding would continue at the same level.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would >> be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project >> needed new funding? >> >> Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN >> budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the >> ICANN budget or whether it is separate. >> >> >> >> I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget >> identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA >> Budget review mentioned by the CWG. >> >> >> >> Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different >> threshold? >> >> >> >> cheers >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the >> community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by >> the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject >> the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission >> and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public >> interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other >> matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that >> the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating >> plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to >> the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would >> include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared >> resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs >> should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific >> function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a >> yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an >> annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in >> advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It >> is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved >> by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN >> budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop >> a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a >> component of the overall budget review. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ >> >> +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> >> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >> Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> >> *A better world through a better Internet * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

2 2

Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Jordan Carter July 26, 2015

July 26, 2015

All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / helpful.... Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Hi all As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so that it can do its job. In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the ICANN budget. - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN budget. - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity. - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the relevant financial year. - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, funding would continue at the same level. Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN budget or whether it is separate. I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA Budget review mentioned by the CWG. Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different threshold? cheers Jordan 1. *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

8 13

Volume 8: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad July 25, 2015

July 25, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions Volume 8: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-8-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> ICG The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) has announced <https://www.ianacg.org/proposal-to-transition-the-stewardship-of-the-iana-f unctions-will-be-out-for-public-comment-july-31-to-september-8-approximately -more-details-to-come-later-this-month/> that it intends to launch the public comment period for the Interim Final Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the IANA Functions on 31 July, with an end date of around 8 September. The ICG will hold webinars at the beginning of the public comment period to provide an overview of the proposal. The most recent version of the ICG's draft proposal is Version 5 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/snxz4dwip2ivno0/combined-proposal-v5.doc?dl=0> . Although it is a lengthy document, 206 pages with some material still to be added, the vast majority of pages consist of the existing proposals that have reached consensus amongst the protocol parameters, numbering resources and domain names operational communities. The most significant new text in the ICG's draft proposal is its own report, currently 10 pages long, at the front of the proposal. The ICG's report includes the ICG's assessment of the three proposals from the operational communities to ensure: * The community processes used to develop the proposals were open and inclusive, and achieved consensus; * the proposals are complete and clear; * the three proposals together are compatible and interoperable, provide appropriate and properly supported accountability mechanisms, and are workable; and * the proposals together meet the NTIA criteria For more background on the ICG's assessment of the three proposals, see its working document,Combined Proposal Assessment Matrix (v2) <https://www.dropbox.com/s/nge13avtzsa5nhu/combined-proposal-assessment-matr ix-v2.docx?dl=0> . CCWG-Accountability The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) held its latest face-to-face meeting in Paris, 17-18 July, which was attended in-person by 76 members and participants in person and an additional 30 joining remotely. Following legal analysis of the "EmpoweredSO/AC Model" presented by Adler & Colvin <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/7.%20%20Revised_% 20%20Empowered%20SO_AC%20Membership%20%26%20Designator%20Models%20with%20CM% 20as%20Sole....pdf?api=v2> in the lead-up to the meeting, the CCWG-Accountability decided in Paris to pursue a new model, the "Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model (CMSM)". This new model builds on the Empowered SO/AC Model that emerged during ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , which in turn, built on the original member and designator models documented in the initial draft report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> of Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements. The CMSM would be established under ICANN Bylaws as the one and only member of ICANN. The CMSM would be composed of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). While the CMSM would have the status of "legal personhood", the SOs and ACs themselves are not required to become legally recognized entities. The possibility of needing to adopt a formal legal status is one of the reasons that parts of the ICANN community were hesitant about the previously proposed models, which required SOs and ACs to adopt "legal personhood" if they wished to have access to "enforceability" mechanisms under the enhanced accountability framework being proposed. Members of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) were active in contributing to the work of the CCWG-Accountability before Paris, with 31 governments contributing input. These inputs were thenconsolidated into a single document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/23.%20%20GAC%20In put%20to%20Paris%20Meeting.pdf?api=v2> by the GAC Secretariat and provided to the CCWG-Accountability before the Paris meeting. The CCWG-Accountability meeting in Paris discussed the concerns of governments and has acknowledged, in its Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-20-en> from the meeting, those concerns as well as the challenge governments face in making decisions about the new CMSM within the short timeframe available before ICANN 54 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> in Dublin. Further, the CCWG-Accountability also reaffirmed in Paris its commitment to coordinating with the Cross Community Working Group to 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> ) on six key dependencies between the CCWG-Accountability's Work Stream 1 work and the work of the CWG-Stewardship: 1. ICANN Budget 2. ICANN Board 3. IANA Function Review 4. Customer Standing Committee 5. Appeals Mechanism 6. Fundamental bylaws The Paris meeting also resulted in broad agreement on enhancements to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (see 18 July Session 2 notes <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54690068> for details). The CCWG-Accountability will create a subgroup to further develop IRP rules and procedures as well as fine tune the subject matter for IRP. The CCWG-Accountability plans to publish the second version of its proposal for a 40-day public comment beginning 31 July and ending 8 September 2015. The second draft has not yet been published, but the working version will be published here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460> . Coordination on stewardship-related activities To enable better communication and understanding of mutual expectations between working group chairs and ICANN SOs and ACs, ICANN is now supporting monthly Transition Facilitation Calls <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transit ion-facilitation-calls> , the first which was held July 16 (listen to the audio recording <http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-e n.mp3> ). At the public ICANN Board meeting at ICANN 53, the Board adopted a resolution <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en#2. c> regarding expenses for one of the two legal counsels retained by the CWG-Stewardship. This resulted in discussions about managing resourcing of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes moving forward. Updates on other transition-related activities IANA-related discussions On 16 July, the IGF-USA 2015 <http://www.igf-usa.org/igf-usa-2015/> held a discussion on the IANA stewardship transition and ICANNaccountability. The discussion has been documented in the Storify article, Internet Governance Forum USA 2015: IANA Transition <https://storify.com/yangbodu/internet-governance-forum-usa-2015-iana> . On July 29, U.S. Rep. John Shimkus will speak <http://www.aei.org/events/the-dotcom-act-a-roadmap-for-congressional-oversi ght-of-the-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-transition/?utm_source=E vent&utm_medium=Paramount&utm_campaign=Tews> on the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act, a bill which provides a framework for congressional oversight of the transition. Following his remarks, members of the Internet governance community will comment on the bill and outlooks for the transition's progress. The event will be webcast and archived within 24 hours. Latest documents and drafts 16 Jul 2015ICG Combined IANA Stewardship proposal <https://www.dropbox.com/s/snxz4dwip2ivno0/combined-proposal-v5.doc?dl=0> , Draft version 5 14 Jul 2015CCWG-Accountability Draft Content for Second Public Comment Report on Fundamental Bylaws <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/2015-07-14-DRAFT- PC2--3-2-and-5-4--FundamentalBylaws.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=143691597 4727&api=v2> 7 Jul 2015CCWG-Accountability Empowered SO/AC Membership & Designator Models for Community Empowerment (and CMSM variation) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54690279/7.%20%20Revised_% 20%20Empowered%20SO_AC%20Membership%20%26%20Designator%20Models%20with%20CM% 20as%20Sole....pdf?api=v2> by Sidley Austin IANA stewardship in the news 20 Jul 2015A fragmentação da Internet só vai servir para reverter as vantagens económicas e a dinâmica da inovação <http://tek.sapo.pt/opiniao/artigo/a_fragmentacao_da_internet_so_vai_servir_ para_reverter_as_vantagens_economicas_e-43454mkc.html> , SAPOTEK [PT] Multistakeholder Internet governance: A pathway completed, the road ahead <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/07/20-multistak eholder-internet-governance-brotman/multistakeholder.pdf> , The Brookings Institution [EN] 15 Jul 2015The CCWG: From Buenos Aires to Paris to Dublin <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-ccwg-from-buenos-aires-to-paris-to-dubl in> , ICANN [EN] Upcoming key dates 29 Jul 2015ICG Teleconference #21 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> , 5:00-7:00 UTC 31 Jul 2015Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANNaccountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) begins. Public Comment Period on interim final IANA stewardship proposal, consisting of names, numbers and protocol parameter components, begins. 3-7 Aug 20153 webinars: briefings on ICG combined proposal released for public comment (times to be confirmed) 8 Sep 2015Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANNaccountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) closes. Public Comment Period on interim final IANA stewardship proposal closes (date TBC). 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 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented toALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval. 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 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 acct-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 23 July 2015 [PDF <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-23j ul15-en.pdf> , 375 KB]

1 0

FW: [client com] CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Forwarded in response to Jordan Carter’s email questions of 21 July 2015, Subject “CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions” From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 22 July 2015 02:16 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [client com] CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Dear Client Committee, On the CCWG call today the question below was raised as to whether the Separation Review and PTI should be referenced in the CCWG list of fundamental bylaws. Our view is that both the Separation Review and PTI should be listed among the fundamental bylaws for the following reasons: 1. The Separation Review is part of the IFR, but we believe it should be specifically called out by referencing the Special IFR, the Separation Process and the SCWG. 2. With respect to PTI, unlike CSC and IFR which are created by the ICANN bylaws, PTI will have a separate legal existence and will not be created by the ICANN bylaws. Notwithstanding PTI’s separate legal existence, there are still implementation mechanisms that relate to PTI that should be contemplated by the ICANN bylaws. For example, as the sole member of PTI, ICANN will have certain statutory rights relative to PTI . In order to appropriately limit and direct the transfer and exercise of these membership rights by ICANN, provisions will need to be included in ICANN’s bylaws. These should be fundamental bylaws so that they cannot be easily changed. For example, - ICANN should not be able to change the composition of the PTI Board that is specified in the PTI articles and bylaws (it can change the people but not the designated seats); - ICANN should not be able to transfer the assets of PTI back to ICANN or to a new entity (absent a separation process that mandates a transfer); - ICANN should not be able to dissolve PTI, etc. In terms of how the Separation Process and PTI could be implemented in the CCWG proposal fundamental bylaw description attached, we have reflected our comments for CWG’s consideration. In addition, attached is a portion of the CCWG proposal that relates to the NTIA and CWG dependencies reflecting our proposed comments to the CWG dependencies section. Please let us know if you would like to discuss. Kinds regards, Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:55 PM To: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr; Flanagan, Sharon Cc: ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; Becky Burr; Steve DelBianco; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Accountability Cross Community Subject: CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Dear Jonathan, Lise, Sharon On the CCWG-Accountability call today, we discussed the fundamental bylaws paper and the relationship with the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship's proposal. There has been some discussion as to whether we should reference the PTI structure, and the Separation review, alongside the CSC and the IANA Functions Review in our Second Public Comment Report. The last two items have been in the draft for a while. The first two have come in and out and as you can see from the attached, are currently out. We are relaxed I think about including them or not including them but seek your formal guidance on the question -- and if you have any, specific guidance as to the right way to reference if they are included. I'd appreciate your feedback by close of play Wednesday UTC if possible so we can resolve this on the CCWG-Accountability's next call on Thursday 23rd. Many thanks, Jordan Carter Rapporteur, Work Party 1 (Community Empowerment) CCWG-Accountability -- **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 3

DOTCOM Act Progress
by Greg Shatan July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

For those following such things, Politico had the following note today: *SHIMKUS DEFENDS DOTCOM ACT AFTER CRUZ'S HOLD *- Rep. John Shimkus says Sen. Ted Cruz threatens to undermine Congress' oversight role by placing a hold on the bipartisan DOTCOM Act. Cruz's hold posed a stark contrast to the bipartisan agreement that emerged in the past few months around the bill, which would give Congress 30 days to review any proposal to end the Commerce Department's oversight of the Internet's domain-name system. Cruz is concerned that the bill allows the transition to take place if Congress doesn't do anything within the review window, but Shimkus said Monday that misses the point. *"Without congressional action, *the Obama administration is under no obligation to renew the existing U.S. contract with ICANN or to consult with Congress at all before relinquishing oversight of the DNS," said Shimkus, who authored the original version of the bill. "Once a congressional review period is required by law through the DOTCOM Act, additional legislation action can be taken based upon the details of ICANN's proposal, NTIA's certification, and the ongoing GAO investigation. Holding up this broadly supported legislation now only undermines Congress's role in the process." The measure looked nearly certain to pass after House Democrats and Republicans negotiated a version of the bill they both support and approved it 378-25 in the lower chamber. We're tracking.

1 0

FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
by Jonathan Robinson July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

All, Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible. Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33 To: cwg-client(a)icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T. Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks Dear All, With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work. This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM To: Flanagan, Sharon Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks Dear Sharon, As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks: 1. IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects: a. Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise. b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust). c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. 2. Matrix of the ICANN bylaws: Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong. Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category. After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me. Best regards, Lise **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
by Grace Abuhamad July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Please see the original link here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transiti on-facilitation-calls Apologies for the delay in forwarding to the list. Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls One of the words most often heard during the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability processes has been coordination coordination amongst communities, coordination amongst members and participants of working groups, coordination amongst community and staff members. As many who follow these processes know, they can at times be complex, and are interrelated. One group can rely on another for various needs, such as the formal dependency between CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, or the necessary inputs groups contribute into each other¹s processes by way of Public Comment periods. At an informal breakfast meeting during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires with many of the transition working group chairs and SO/AC leaders, we shared a working draft transition timeline, and discussed how we could better ensure clearer alignment amongst all the agendas, timelines and expectations. <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-tr ansition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf> As a result of the discussion that followed, the group decided it would hold monthly facilitation calls with each other, ICANN leadership and NTIA, to discuss where each group stands at that given point in time. The group also decided that these meetings would not to be used to discuss substance. The group agreed to share publicly the working draft transition timeline <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-tra nsition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.01 MB], as well as an audio file <http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-e n.mp3> [MP3, 8.32 MB] of the first call with the community held last Thursday. As we move steadily towards completion of the first phase of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, it is vital that we all stay aligned, and these monthly calls will help facilitate that. To listen to the audio of the first call, please see here: http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en .mp3 - TS

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values
by Christopher Wilkinson July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

Begin forwarded message: > From: CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values > Date: 18 Jul 2015 20:50:59 GMT+02:00 > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Accountability" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Cc: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> > > Actually, Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation states: > > <<4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law … >> > > The reference to local law is essential for all non-US jurisdictions. It should be maintained in all related discussions, including that, below. > > CW > > > On 18 Jul 2015, at 19:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: > >> Becky: >> >> It's Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation. >> >> In ICM -v- ICANN, HHJ Tevrizian (retd.) wrote >> >>> 140. In the view of the Panel, ICANN, in carrying out its activities “in >>> conformity with the relevant principles of international law,” is charged with >>> acting consistently with relevant principles of international law, including >>> the general principles of law recognized as a source of international law. >>> >>> That follows from the terms of Article 4 of its Articles of Incorporation and >>> from the intentions that animated their inclusion in the Articles, an intention >>> that the Panel understands to have been to subject ICANN to relevant >>> international legal principles because of its governance of an intrinsically >>> international resource of immense importance to global communications and >>> economies. Those intentions might not be realized were Article 4 >>> interpreted to exclude the applicability of general principles of law. >> >> Now were this a judgment in a common-law jurisdiction, one might concede that the above remarks of Judge Tevrizian are persuasive rather than binding precedent (but that was always going be the case anyway, as it isn't a court judgment; rather a decision in an arbitration). >> >> Nonetheless, the eminence and experience of the author, coupled with what clearly is his very high-level of understanding of ICANN and its role leads me to believe this is an accurate construction of the meaning of Art. 4, and I so submit. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Fwd: Public pre-announcement
by Greg Shatan July 18, 2015

July 18, 2015

The ICG has just issued the following announcement. Greg *From:* Jennifer Chung <jen(a)icgsec.asia> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:48 AM *To:* internal-cg(a)ianacg.org *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Public pre-announcement: Proposal to transition thestewardship of the IANA functions will be out for publiccomment July 31 to September 8 (approximately). More detailsto come later this month. Dear All, Per the request from the ICG and the ICG chairs for early public pre-announcement, the Secretariat has posted the following on the ICG home page and social media accounts: “Proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions will be out for public comment July 31 to September 8 (approximately). More details to come later this month.” ICG web site: https://www.ianacg.org/ Link to post: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=553 Tweet: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/621446718463283201 (abbrev. to fit) Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1679144795647486 Please broadcast this to your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

3 4

Fwd: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
by Alissa Cooper July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Could someone shed light on the questions posed by Manal below? Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG > Date: July 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM PDT > To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn(a)LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg(a)ianacg.org> > > I also don't understand what's the timeline of this and more importantly what's the fallback scenario in case this requires many hours and turn to be out of budget .. > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:37 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG > > Hi Milton, > > I don't understand it either, and that would be a good question for the CWG. > > Lynn > > On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > >> I do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely, make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because they don't meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems? >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG >> >> The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows: >> >> Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities. >> >> >> The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR. >> >> >> Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it's wrong. >> >> Alissa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

6 6