- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality
by Alan Greenberg June 27, 2015

June 27, 2015

I was going to wait until I got home to try to make a clear statement on this, but since things are heating up now, I will try here. Regarding billing rates, I am WELL aware of this, but in the absence of any real information, I took a stab at a typical hourly rate. The $500k charge may well include the CCWG, but the Board resolution was quite explicit. If it is wrong, that is yet another significant concern. I personally found it amazing that, to my knowledge, during our (the CWG and CCWG) demands for external legal council, there were very few questions about getting estimates of what this might cost. This directly supports concerns by some Board members about the community being given budget responsibility with any associated interest in the results or implications of (some of) its decisions. I find ALL of this discussion driven by the paucity of information rather perturbing, given that it is occurring within groups so (rightfully) enamored by transparency and accountability. Someone mentioned that we have not yet seen the detailed bills. I certainly hope that SOMEONE had seen them prior to approving payment, and if we (ie ICANN staff or CWG/CCWG leadership) have them, I would be interested in understanding the reasons for them not being shared. Alan At 27/06/2015 12:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >I believe (but stand to be corrected) that >Sidley's bill covered their work with both the >CWG and CCWG. Their efforts on both fronts >started in March 2015. Also, Sidley's billing >rates vary by attorney, rather than there being >just a single rate per hour for all >attorneys. (There are times when law firms will >agree to bill on a "blended rate" (i.e., all >hours cost the same regardless of the attorney) >but it's a relatively uncommon practice.) > >Greg > >On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Actually Chuck, the Board motion was approval of >the costs incurred through 31 March 2015, and >Sidley Austin was only engaged on 6 March. So >that appears to be the charge for the first 3 weeks or so. > >My recollection is that they are billing a bit >under $1000 per hour, so that would amount (in >round numbers to 500 hours or 60 8-hour days in 25 calendar days. > >Our Sidley legal team consists of several >people, and presumably for the first week or so, >many of them were "catching up", which >presumably accounts for a fair part of this. >Then, Holly and Sharon were in Istanbul for several days. > >Overall, pretty high, but I am guessing the >remaining months had a lower per-month rate. > >Alan > >At 25/06/2015 05:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote > >>Sean, >> >>500k to date not per month. >> >>Chuck >> >> >>Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SÂ® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> >> >>-------- Original message -------- >>From: Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >>Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) >>To: James Gannon <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net> >>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality >> >>With due respect James, I am in no way >>belittling the work of legal council. I am >>rather wondering how we as a community >>recognising this huge cost did not better >>strategize on how/when to engage external >>council. The amount that has been spent on all >>participants of the ccwg and cwg(for >>remote/physical meetings) would seem to be >>competing with the total cost of legal advice >>(perhaps legal would even be more). >> >>The deed has been done and we can't rewrite >>history. My comment is targeted more on the >>fact that we need to think of how we engage >>legal more efficiently going forward. >> >>For the record, when Greg said top notch >>council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination! >> >>Regards >> >>sent from Google nexus 4 >>kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" >><<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net > wrote: >>Our legal advice has been critical to our >>process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. >>I think we should be thanking them for their >>service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. >>It is most certainly something that I have no >>issue with the community exercising its >>prudence over however lets not limit ourselves >>in any way to engage with our counsel. >>-James >>From: >><<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji >>Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 >>To: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality >>Hi, >>I hope those who want to always push issues to >>external legal advice would appreciate the need >>to be strategic and prudent about this. Over >>500,000USD already spent on Sidley is >>definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on. >>Regards >>sent from Google nexus 4 >>kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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

FW: CWG-Stewardship Response to ICG RFP
by Grace Abuhamad June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Congrats to all! From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 11:28 AM To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net> Cc: ICG Secretariat <admin(a)icgsec.asia>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Subject: CWG-Stewardship Response to ICG RFP Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. The Final Proposal is attached in PDF format along with a covering note in PDF format. The covering note is copied below. For a link to the Final Proposal (and downloadable Word and PDF formats), please see: https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw. 25 June 2015 Alissa Cooper, Chair Mohamed El Bashir, Vice Chair Patrik Fältström, Vice Chair IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Dear Alissa, Mohamed, and Patrik, Following the submission on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) Final Proposal to its Chartering Organizations on 11 June 2015, we are pleased to announce that the proposal has been approved by all five organizations as the response from the Names community to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals. Each of the Chartering Organizations¹ approval and statement is recorded as follows: · Governmental Advisory Committee <https://community.icann.org/x/lKY0Aw> (GAC) · Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-072-en.pdf> (SSAC) · Generic Names Supporting Organization <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506> (GNSO) · Country Codes Names Supporting Organisation <https://community.icann.org/x/66Y0Aw> (ccNSO)[1] <#_ftn1> · At-Large Advisory Committee <https://community.icann.org/x/fAsnAw> (ALAC) The Final Proposal is the result of extensive work over the past year by the CWG-Stewardship¹s diverse group comprising; 19 members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors. The group¹s work included over 100 calls or meetings, 4,000 email messages and at least 5,000 volunteer hours. The Final Proposal represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice and significant compromises by all who participated. It includes diligent attention to the input of 115 comments received through the Public Comment proceedings. Prior to submitting to the Chartering Organizations or their approval, the Final Proposal received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship itself, with no objections or minority statements recorded. The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG-Accountability. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this proposal will require revision. We also note that there are certain implementation elements that will require further work in the near future, including coordination with the other respondents to the ICG RFP as appropriate and the ICG where necessary. In any event, we will continue to make ourselves available to you in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, comprehensive further background documents and reference materials are available here <https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw> . Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship [1] <#_ftnref1> In accordance to the rules of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf> ), the decisions in this resolution will become effective seven days after publication of these decisions by the Council. For the interim, the chair of the ccNSO is requested to inform the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship of the decision of the ccNSO Council under the assumption the decision is effective and subsequently, after seven (7) days, whether these decision has become effective.

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #60 25 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 60 on 25 June 2015 in Buenos Aires will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53781200 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53781200> Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: monitor project plan for SLE implementation (and check on funding as part of this) Action (SLE Team) to include seeking confirmation on adequate funding as part of their work Action: CWG-Stewardship to deal both with ICG and Chartering Organization questions. Action: CWG-Stewardship to meet shortly after the CCWG-Accountability document is ready for Public Comment and comment/review (course-correction if necessary). The same type of review will need to take place before final submission (anticipated for ICANN 54 in Dublin) Notes 1. Opening Remarks We have approval from all five Chartering Organizations. CWG-Stewardship will communicate proposal to ICG immediately following this meeting. 2. Approval from chartering organizations ccNSO -- had Council meeting yesterday and approved submissions of proposal to the ICG. When doing 'sense of the room' earlier, there were no abstentions or objections. ALAC -- met earlier today and approved the proposal. highlighted two comments: 1. selection of two PTI Board members should focus on diversity 2. successful operation of PTI will be contingent on adequate funding (especially for R&D) ALAC Motion ratifying CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2015-June/008762.html> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2015-June/008762.html GAC -- GAC letter of approval: <https://community.icann.org/x/lKY0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/lKY0Aw GNSO -- approved the motion to transmit report. highlighted conditionality SSAC -- SAC072 comment on CWG-Stewardship proposal is supportive of proposal 3. Future work of the CWG-Stewardship . pre-submission to NTIA Need to finalize SLEs (work from DT-A, now called "SLE Team") * * Patricio Poblete (ccNSO): next step is to come to agreement on framework. Software changes will follow based on ICANN assessment for timing. * Chuck Gomes (GNSO): costs for implementation of changes based on SLEs need to be covered Action: monitor project plan for SLE implementation (and check on funding as part of this) Action (SLE Team) to include seeking confirmation on adequate funding as part of their work ICG assessment by 7 July. ICG will communicate to CWG-Stewardship on 8 July. CWG-Stewardship can expect clarifying questions. The plan is therefore to have a meeting on 9 July at 17:00 UTC. Action: CWG-Stewardship to deal both with ICG and Chartering Organization questions. ICG will then compile document for Public Comment around 14 July. Document is unlikely to go out for Public Comment until end of July. Action: CWG-Stewardship to meet shortly after the CCWG-Accountability document is ready for Public Comment and comment/review (course-correction if necessary). The same type of review will need to take place before final submission (anticipated for ICANN 54 in Dublin) . post-submission to NTIA What, if any, role does the CWG-Stewardship have in implementation? * * Greg Shatan (GNSO): need to break this time period into two blocks. One for NTIA consideration time and one for implementation time. * Alan Greenberg (ALAC): at least one question in SAC072 needs to be addressed by DT-F. Some groups or DTs may need to gather to answer those questions. Chairs will need to alert the groups and direct work. * James Gannon (GNSO): suggestion for 'Implementation Review Team' as a sub-group of CWG-Stewardship for those who are interested. * Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC): the CCWG-Accountability has a timeline with Public Comment periods through implementation. * Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Pass the baton to the ICG so they can run Public Comments, but the CWG-Stewardship should consider more formal submissions that just individual comments. * Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Principle from the Policy & Implementation WG in the GNSO: should be ongoing communication to make sure that the intent of the recommendations is followed. 4. Response to letter from ICG (on trademark) Short term: our response to ICG needs to clarify that our proposal is effectively silent on the trademark issue Action Plan to deal with intellectual property, including IANA trademark and domain name registration: 1. Respond to the ICG 2. Meet with the other proposing groups 3. Compile an agreed set of facts 4. Start to work with potential solutions/resolutions with professional assistance 5. Formulate a CWG-Stewardship position if necessary * * Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Need for action plan on trademark issue in today's meeting so that we can resolve sooner rather than later. * Greg Shatan (GNSO): Need an independent person to provide guidance. * Seun Ojedeji (ALAC): Need a high-level view on the community views on IPR before going into legal view. * Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Suggest that we reach out to both IANAPLAN and CRISP and involve them in CWG advice-seeking. CWG should not work independent of the other groups. * Andrew Sullivan (IAB): procedural problem with this plan: this coordination could reopen an issue that already had agreement within the IETF. Working method for IANAPLAN is mailing list based. * Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): Legal advice is not complex on this issue. To solve the issue, we need the facts and the goals (the rationale). Could get this from the other communities. * James Gannon (GNSO): Action plan as follows: 1) Set out the facts as they are; 2) set out what we want at the end; 3) we reach out to our counsel (a, b, c); 4) we then reach out to other communities; 5) we bring resolution to ICG. * Greg Shatan (GNSO): Identify a small group within this group to identify the facts. * Alan Greenberg (ALAC): unfortunate that communities couldn't have gotten together sooner. Try to cover separation possibility (where the issue lies). * Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP): offer to help :) Happy to have formal and informal process on this issue, but if the result of conversations could change position for the groups, the groups will need to go back to their communities and go back through bottom-up process. * Greg Shatan (GNSO): start with facts. 5. Future coordination * Chairs have had contact with the various groups along the way. * Will need to keep in touch with the CCWG-Accountability in particular both as Chairs and as a CWG. * ICANN, as facilitator, will maintain an overview of the program. Chairs intend to feed in to that group where they need to provide input. 6. AOB * Thank you to Sidley Austin, in particular Holly Gregory and Sharon Flanagan. Legal advice was critical to success of the CWG-Stewardship's work. * Thank you staff! * Thank you members, participants, and everyone who has supported to the CWG-Stewardship in getting a proposal to the ICG

1 0

Fwd: Congress to ICANN: Approve .Amazon as proof of accountability, before IANA Transition
by Erick Iriarte June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

Note: in some cultures this called blackmail ;) > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > Asunto: [derecho-informatico] Congress to ICANN: Approve .Amazon as proof of accountability, before IANA Transition > Fecha: 25 de junio de 2015, 10:07:39 GMT-3 > > Fuente: http://domainnewsafrica.com/congress-icann-approve-amazon-proof-accountabil… <http://domainnewsafrica.com/congress-icann-approve-amazon-proof-accountabil…> > > Congress to ICANN: Approve .Amazon as proof of accountability, before IANA Transition > By Evans Taylor • On June 24, 2015 • In Featured > > The co-chairs of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA4] and Rep. Suzan DelBene [D-WA1]have written to ICANN informing them that they need to approve Amazon’s application for .Amazon which has been rejected due to “rights” asserted by Brazil nor Peru in relation to the Amazon Forest raised by Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). This they say as proof that > > “ICANN can demonstrate to Congress that it is accountable to the global community, independent of governmental interference, and respectful of international trademark law; such a demonstration is crucial before the IANA functions transition.” > This is the second letter coming after the recnt June 10 2015 letter written and signed by 11 members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet goes where ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) new gTLD interference received a fresh Congressional attention. the Congress men wrote to urge the ICANN to address concerns that it may become susceptible to governmental interference without due consideration of policies developed through the multistakeholder process under its current structure. The letter said > > “ICANN’s GAC appears to have overridden several community-developed policies in recent years. Such an outcome is incompatible with the bottom-up, multistakeholder model reflected in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.” > .Amazon is among a list of other new gTLD applications including .africa, .gcc that were largely affected by the ICANN Beijing GAC objection advice that asked the ICANN board to block them from proceeding to delegation due to what GAC erroneously concluded were concerns over geographic domains. > > It is becoming more apparent that Congress is keen to participate in the modelling of the new transition architecture and the House of Representatives recently overwhelmingly passed the H.R. 805, the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act authored by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), that gives Congress a 30-day window to review the transition plan before the National Telecommunications and Information Administration relinquishes control. > > ICANN’s new gTLD process has several avenues that new gTLD applicants can go through to seek recourse in the event that their application is stopped by ICANN’s processes and especially the board. The new gTLD program has more than 11 Independent Review processes where affected applicants are seeking to overturn both GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)’s unfavorable decisions. > > The latest .Amazon interest by congress as a prerequisite for ICANN to proof that it is indeed ready to run without IANA oversight could embolden other applicants to seek the voice of congress in resolving their cases. Other applicants who have sought congressional voice on ICANN’s role in new gTLD hitches include .Africa applicant DotConnectAfrica (DCA), who in fact was the first to bring matters of ICANN accountability to congress. Post congressional engagement, DCA has concurrently initiated the IRP process of ICANN whose result is expected to be decided by an IRP panel, before further congressional intervention like Amazon. > > Read the whole letter fro Congress to Dr. Steven Crocker Board of Directors Chair, and Mr. Fadi Chehade Chief Executive Officer ICANN > > #### > > June 19, 2015 > > Dr. Steven Crocker Board of Directors Chair Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > As co-chairs of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, we write to encourage you to actively seek resolution of the .AMAZON generic top level domains (gTLDs). We understand that Amazon has recently reiterated to 1CANN its interest in finding a mutually acceptable solution for the .AMAZON gTLDs. At this critical stage in which the United States Government prepares to transition stewardship of the IANA functions, we believe it is incumbent upon ICANN to resolve this issue, demonstrating that all stakeholders and trademark owners can be treated fairly, according to ICANN’s multistakeholder-developed rules and existing international law. > > Amazon’s 2012 applications for the .AMAZON gTLDs conformed fully to the requirements of ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook, received full marks in ICANN’s application evaluation, and were consistent with its globally protected “Amazon” trademark. Nevertheless, ICANN refused to allow the .AMAZON applications to proceed after the Governmental Advisoiy Committee objected — outside of ICANN’s application objection process — because of sovereignty concerns raised by Brazil and Peru. In fact, neither Brazil nor Peru has any legally recognized rights — let alone intellectual property rights — in the term “Amazon” and there is no basis in international law for either country to assert rights in the term “Amazon.” Based on the rules set by the ICANN community and supported by international law generally as well as international trademark law specifically, ICANN’s rejection of the .AMAZON applications appears to have no legal basis and potentially creates a troubling precedent of governments disregarding established principles of international law, including international trademark law. > > We strongly support attempts to find a mutually acceptable solution for .AMAZON and we urge ICANN to convene the interested parties. By resolving this outstanding issue, ICANN can demonstrate to Congress that it is accountable to the global community, independent of governmental interference, and respectful of international trademark law; such a demonstration is crucial before the 1ANA functions transition. > > Sincerely, > > J. Randy Forbes Co-Chair Congressional Trademark Caucus > > PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER > > Suzan DelBene Co-Chair Congressional Trademark Caucus > > #### > _________________________________________________________________ > Erick Iriarte > Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias > > IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS > Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú > Telefax: (+511) 2035400 > Sitio web: iriartelaw.com <http://iriartelaw.com/> > Twitter: @ialaw > Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw <http://facebook.com/ialaw> > > Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. > > Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. > > Declaracion de Confidencialidad > El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. > > Statement of Confidentiality > The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. > > > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community Foro de Derecho Informático. <https://dgroups.org/alfa-redi-global/derecho-informatico>. > > View this contribution on the web site <https://dgroups.org/_/g95d08lq> > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Foro de Derecho Informático.. > > Reply to sender <mailto:eiriarte@alfa-redi.org> | Unsubscribe <mailto:leave.derecho-informatico@dgroups.org>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] GAC Position on CWG Final Proposal
by Lise Fuhr June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear All, Please see attached letter from GAC to the CWG regarding the proposal. Best, Lise Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached a letter from the Chair of the GAC conveying the GAC position on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal. Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate

2 1

ccNSO Council passes Motion to support the CWG-Stewardship IANA Proposal
by Erick Iriarte June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

A few minutes ago. .@ccNSO Council passes Motion to support the CWG-Stewardship IANA Proposal #icann53 #IANAsteward <- by majority cc: @ICANN_GNSO @ICANN Erick pd… good job to all :) in special to our chairs

1 0

Tweet from gnso a few minutes ago - passes Motion to adopt the Proposal from the CWG IANA Stewardship
by Erick Iriarte June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO/status/613767300404133888 <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO/status/613767300404133888> @icann_gnso GNSO Council unanimously passes Motion to adopt the Proposal from the CWG regarding the transition of IANA stewardship #ICANN53 #ICANN

1 0

Agenda for the CWG-Stewardship working session at ICANN53
by Grace Abuhamad June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, We have a working session at ICANN53. The information for this session is available here: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship The agenda is as follows: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Approval from chartering organizations 3. Future work of the CWG-Stewardship > 1. pre-submission to NTIA > 2. post-submission to NTIA 4. Response to letter from ICG (on trademark) 5. Future coordination > 1. ICG > 2. CRISP > 3. IANAPLAN > 4. CCWG-Accountability 6. AOB For remote participants, Brenda will send a reminder with call details and the Adobe Connect room. Best, Grace

1 0

ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
by Alissa Cooper (alcoop) June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear CWG, The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations. During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3] Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well. The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC. Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132 [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.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 IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition." [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html

13 31

Fwd: [DTA - SLE] Questions and Answers - Revised
by Paul M Kane - CWG June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear CWG members, Jay Daley (.NZ) has prepared some excellent Q&A to update the community on the work of the SLE Working Group which may be of interest. Rest assured we are trying to progress the drafting of the SLE which should be concluded in the next few weeks so ICANN / IANA has a framework for monitoring their systems as part of the Implementation Phase. Kind regards Paul ----- Forwarded message from Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz> ----- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:29:26 -0300 From: Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz> Reply-To: Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz> Subject: [DTA - SLE] Questions and Answers - Revised To: dt1(a)icann.org I had some feedback on my initial Q&As so Iâve updated them below. The changes are about a) The IANA system development; b) The plan for more data capture to inform the performance targets; c) the next steps. Now that Iâve had some feedback, I was planning to share these later today with a few people who are involved in CWG-Stewardship and who are concerned about our progress - please let me know if this is an issue. Jay Q: Why has there been so little open discussion by DT-A on the mailing list? It all looks very secretive? A: We began work some time before a DT-A mailing list was established and by the time it was, a lot of work on drafting had already taken place. Soon after the list was established the issue of how IANA would be involved was resolved with the full engagement from the IANA staff, and it was felt that direct conversations with IANA were the best way to take advantage of that rather than slow conversations on the list. In order to engage fully IANA had to get assemble a series of documents that detail their internal processes and then get permission from the NTIA to release them. Altogether this process took a long time. Q: What involvement has ICANN/IANA had and how committed are they to this? A: Initially it appeared to us that ICANN was only going to engage at a senior executive level to insist that the SLA stays unchanged from that in place currently. This was not acceptable to the DT-A team as we regard the current NTIA approved SLA as well below the minimum SLA required for a service of such global importance. Fortunately IANA staff are now involved and they are fully committed to a proper SLA that serves the need of customers and drives internal improvements. It is useful to note that an SLE (Service Level Expectation) is generally set by customers alone, whereas with this full engagement from IANA it is possible for us to agree an SLA (Service Level Agreement) which is equally supported by both customers and the providers. Q: Does the DT-A team have an agenda here, such as forcing through the automation of IANA? A: No. The team has taken the view from the outset that it is not our role to change the processes in any way. IANA have already started a process of automation of some elements of their service, as presented at various ICANN meetings, and we are trying to keep up with that but we are not introducing any agenda of our own. Q: What is the general plan for the SLA? A: Conceptually it breaks down into three parts: 1. A full service definition with each service broken down into constituent processes and stages within those processes that require individual measurement. 2. An initial set of performance targets. 3. An initial set of breach thresholds - a percentage of requests that must meet the performance target or IANA is in breach of the SLA. A set of principles has been developed to guide the work on these three parts. Q: What is being measured? A: Both time to complete a request (broken down by stage) and the accuracy of the work completed. For some processes, such as nameserver changes, the accuracy needs to be 100% but for others a lower standard is acceptable. Q: Is all that measurement necessary? A: It is the clear consensus view of DT-A that without this level of measurement it is not possible to define an SLA nor is it possible to ensure that an SLA meets the needs of the customer. The breakdown into stages of processes has been chosen to reflect the different responsibilities for those stages and the different nature of those stages. For example, if IANA ask for more information about a root change then the clock needs to stop and the responsibility for progressing that request transfers from IANA to the requestor. This level of measurement is vital to resolve, once and for all, two different perceptions that people have of IANA performance: - that IANA operates a two-tier SLA with contracted TLDs receiving a faster service than non-contracted TLDs while both are still within the overall SLA. - that IANA is the primary cause of delays. By specifying stages where the clock stops when responsibility transfers, this ensures an accurate measurement of IANA performance. Q: How were the initial performance targets set? A: It is important to note that no targets have yet been set. Some targets were initially proposed based on analysis of previous IANA performance (the full data set used for the analysis is available) but we have agreed with IANA that we need more data and are hoping for 2-3 months of data capture from IANA. The key takeaway is that the performance targets in current NTIA SLA are far looser than we as customers believe they should be and IANA as the operator clearly recognises this because it is over-performing by so much. Q: Has work been done to ensure that these targets match the importance of the processes and are not arbitrary? Isnât there a problem that if we use current performance then IANA needs to establish a base line even higher to ensure that they never breach those targets? A: The answers are yes the work has been done and no there isnât a problem. These issues are addressed by the use of breach levels, which work in conjunction with the performance targets. For example a performance target might be set for a specific type of customers request at 5 days based on evidential analysis, but the breach threshold might be set at 90%, which means that only 90% of requests of this type need to meet the 5 day target. This breach threshold serves a dual purpose: - It provides headroom for IANA above the target by allowing them to ignore the worst performing requests. - This level of headroom given reflects the customer priority of this type of request. Q: Once these targets are set are they fixed in stone? A: No, these are an initial set of targets and it is expected that they will develop over time in two ways: - ongoing process improvement by IANA leading to improvements in performance - better consultation with customers to understand our priorities better, leading to adjustments in targets to reflect that Q: How important is it that these elements are in place before transition? A: The view of the DT-A team is that a full SLE/SLA needs to be in place by the start of the transition however IANA have noted that there are some pre-requisites that must be met before they can implement it. These are: 1. The current IT system needs to have features added to extract the required measurements. This development can only begin once there is certainty that this transition is going ahead on this basis and IANA can only turn those changes on after transition given the nature of their agreement with the NTIA. It should also be remembered that IANA will need to make a case for development resources to the ICANN executive team as IANA has no development resources of its own. 2. IANA staff will need time to adapt to the changes in their working practices to implement this measurement. Q: When will the DT-A be finished? A: We are close to completing the SLA except the actual performance targets. These will be added later after a data collection period and discussion with IANA. -- Jay Daley Chief Executive NZRS Ltd desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley _______________________________________________ dt1 mailing list dt1(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2