- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Charter interpretation
by Seun Ojedeji June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs, all Re-reading the CWG charter, I like to get some clarification/correction on my interpretation of the CWG charter. Sections below: *Final Transition Proposal * > After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as > described above, the co-chairs of the WG shall, within ten working days > after receiving the last notification, submit the Final Transition Proposal > to the Chairs of all the chartering organizations..............In the event > one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not support (parts of) > the Final Proposal, the Final Proposal should clearly indicate which parts > are fully supported and which parts that are not, and which chartering > organization dissents from the CWG view. > In the event that no consensus is reached by the CWG, the Final Report will document the process that was > followed and will be submitted to the chartering > organizations to request possible suggestions for mitigating the issues > that are preventing consensus...... Based on the section above, i like to get response/confirmation on the following assumption: - That the current proposal is final "draft" of the CWG - That the CWG would reconvene to update the curent draft based on response from the chartering organisation. - That another consensus call will still be made by the CWG to produce a final proposal to be submited Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

3 5

Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
by Seun Ojedeji June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Hi, I think this is a good summary on IANA trademark that could be interest. Please pay attention to the last paragraph. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(a)jck.com> Date: 22 Jun 2015 19:21 Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name To: "Mwendwa Kivuva" <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> Cc: <ianaplan(a)ietf.org> --On Monday, June 22, 2015 16:54 -0300 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> wrote: >... > Today I asked to Greg Shetan, Chair Intellectual Property > Community at ICANN on what he thought on the request to > transfer the Intellectual Propert out of ICANN. His view was > we should look at trademark law and take the direction that > works well for all parties. His Personal view was the IANA > Function Operator should hold these trademarks. I hope I have > not misquoted him. Hi. I think this illustrates the principle that the answer to questions often depends on exactly what question one asks. Let's review how we got here and please pass this note onto Mr. Shatan. Today, the IANA Function Operator is ICANN so, by the advice above, the right party has the trademarks. However, various parts of the community have gotten concerned that ICANN might use the ownership of the trademarks to prevent, or set conditions on, all or part of the IANA Function from being turned over to some separate operator. As I understand it, the NTIA, under the current contract, would not allow the trademark or domain name the IANA Function to be transferred to a separate operator without the trademarks, domain names, and, incidentally, the contents of various registries going along with it. So, unless other arrangements can be found that make sure that any transfer of the IANA function occur with the full support of the outgoing incumbent and take any IPR, including the trademark and domain name with it as part of the deal (and assuming the trademark, etc., really are important), "the name should be held by the IANA Function Operator" could turn out to be a guarantee that an incumbent IANA Function Operator could hold onto that role as long as it liked, dictating whatever conditions it liked. The following summary is crude, but, AFAICT, the position of the communities so far is: IETF: At least for us, the trademark and domain name are not nearly as important as some parties believe. Beyond that, ICANN has been well-behaved in this particular area, we really don't believe that is likely to change (implying that, should there need to be a change in the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN would cooperate in transferring the names rather than trying to dig in and hold onto them as a negotiating point even though that would cause significant inconvenience and perhaps damage to Internet security and stability), and putting a lot of energy into this issue isn't worth it. The IETF does, however, have a handy structure that holds various intellectual property assets in trust for the broad Internet community. That structure has a very good track record and, if the other communities involved see a need to transfer the trademarks and domain names out of ICANN (presumably because of lack of trust in ICANN future good behavior), we would be willing to hold those assets too. RIRs: apparently see somewhat more risk than the IETF does (perhaps because the IETF believes it is in a better position to just walk away if things got really bad) and would prefer to see the trademark and domain names transferred to the IETF Trust to administer on behalf of the broader community. CWG: Sees creating PTI, transferring the domain name and trademarks to it, for exclusive use, and setting up a detailed set of licensing arrangements that best solution to the problem. If that mischaracterizes the position, please explain. Otherwise (personal option only, but one informed by working with IANA and on IANA policies long before anyone dreamed of ICANN and having been somewhat involved with the IANA transition to ICANN and the first few rounds of this discussion): PTI is an interesting idea. It it were the IANA Function Operator, the above answer to your question suggests that it should hold the trademarks, etc. However, as long as it is ICANN-controlled, its holding the trademarks does not, by itself, provide any protection against the trademarks being used as leverage to prevent moving the function away from ICANN (and its subsidiaries and affiliates) entirely. So, ignoring any other issues associated with PTI, if the concern is that the trademarks not be used to restrict either the reasonable behavior of the IANA "customers" or the ability to remove the IANA function entirely from ICANN's scope and assign it, intact and without a great deal of strife, to some other entity, the PTI model just doesn't help. Two additional comments: One of the things I understood Larry Strickling to say yesterday afternoon is that the focus of the transition effort should be on transition requirements and that it would probably be good if various parts of the community avoiding using "transition" as an excuse to engage in overall ICANN reform and reorganization. I can see several motivations for PTI if we were trying, again, to reform and reorganize ICANN, but, if that it not the goal, then the odds of success in getting a transition plan completed and approved seem to me to be much higher if we keep this simple rather than trying to create new organization elements and then trying to sort of the relationships between them and everyone/ everything else. Again, just my opinion, but.... Also, with no disrespect to anyone involved, if you came to people who were spending a very large fraction of their lives on IETF protocol work and asked "is Internet protocol work important?", it is unlikely that you would get many negative answers. Asking someone involved as staff or a Board or Advisory Committee member whether a well-managed and fairly allocated Internet address space is important would also be unlikely to get a negative answer. Similarly, if I asked an actively practicing Intellectual Property lawyer if trademarks are important, I would certainly expect a "yes" answer and be surprised if I got anything else. That doesn't make any of those "yes, it is important" answers wrong -- they are probably correct -- it just makes the answers sufficiently close to obvious to make the questions barely worth asking. best, john _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

1 0

FW: [Ianaplan] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
by Milton L Mueller June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Here is another relevant fact From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:03 AM, John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org<mailto:jcurran@istaff.org>> wrote: The marks are with ICANN simply because it was more appropriate that ICANN (as the IANA contractor upon formation) take on responsibility for any effort and costs associated with maintenance or enforcement of the intellectual property… USG explicitly recognized the transfer from USC-ISI to ICANN in order to facilitate this maintenance, given that ICANN was being formed to take on in a more formal manner the duties that Jon (et al) had been doing previously. I was asked by folks for the reference for this event, so here it is: ICANN’s "Proposal to the U.S. Government to Perform the IANA Function" <https://archive.icann.org/en/general/iana-proposal-02feb00.htm#IA2b>, page 4 "Governmental Approval of USC-ISI's Transfer of Intellectual Property to ICANN” - Effectively states that while not necessary for performance of the duties, it is more appropriate that the new operator ICANN take responsibility for any effort or costs associated with maintenance or enforcement of the intellectual property, hence the transfer. FYI, /John

1 0

FW: [Ianaplan] Fwd: ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
by Milton L Mueller June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Here's a good message from the IANAPLAN list of the IETF related to the trademark and domain issue: -----Original Message----- From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name The current model is to have ICANN be viewed as a contractor for IANA services. Remarkably, this view seems to be held by more than one of the affected communities. I say remarkably because getting alignment on strategic issues, between entities like the IETF and the RIRs seems unusual to me. In any event, contractors should not 'own' resources that properly belong to the those contracting with them. More generally, an arrangement with a contractor should be devised so as to facilitate possible transfer of the contracting relationship to a different provider. Any arrangement which 'defers' basic matters of control until the termination phase is inviting transfer problems. By 'inviting' I mean that it is guaranteeing there will be serious problems. My plan is that we do the normal and reasonable and responsible work of anticipating the transfer now, rather than taking an escapist stance that what we arrange now doesn't matter. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

1 0

New blogs on ICANN website
by Grace Abuhamad June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

Dear all, Here are some blogs released in the past week that may be of interest to you: * 16 June Continuing alignment: working together towards a new stewardship and enhanced accountability: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/continuing-alignment-working-together-toward s-a-new-stewardship-and-enhanced-accountability * 19 June Your guide to IANA Stewardship/Accountability at ICANN53: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/your-guide-to-iana-stewardship-accountabilit y-at-icann-53. * 20 June New IANA Functions Resource Published: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/new-iana-functions-resource-published Best, Grace

2 1

Feedback on First Webinar
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier

9 11

A blog from NTIA
by Avri Doria June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann… --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Greg Shatan June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

I'm fine with that. I'm primarily concerned with avoiding the (unintentional) confusion and ambiguity that the Managing Director title creates (unless you are in the U.K., in which case it's as clear as the boot on your saloon). Greg On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> wrote: > Seems to me the top officer title is something that could be left to the > company to decide. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:43:40 PM > *To:* Donna Austin > *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Client > *Subject:* Re: [client com] [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition: IANA > Managing Director > > Most likely, Elise would get a "better title" and be President of PTI. > That is the default title for the head of a corporation, profit or non (and > sometimes even a division -- see Akram Attalah, President, Global Domains > Division). Elise wouldn't be the VP, IANA because she would no longer be a > Vice President (and employee) of ICANN; instead she'd be the top dog of > PTI. (I continue to push against "Managing Director" because it has no > meaning or consistent usage in any US corporate context, except in the > banking and fund world, where it has a different meaning.) > > An alternative often seen when referring to the top employee in US > non-profits is "Executive Director." Subject to legal advice, that might > make everyone including me happy (though I personally find President to be > a more desirable and impressive title). I'm sure either President or > Executive Director would provide continuity and comfort while also > providing clarity as to function in a California Public Benefit Corporation. > > Greg > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Donna Austin < > Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com> wrote: > >> From a RySG perspective, we had provided comments that supported PTI, >> but on the premise that this would allow the continuation and management of >> the IANA Department in much the same way as we know it today. That’s one of >> the reasons we supported an ‘insider’ board because we felt this was one >> way to maintain some semblance of the IANA Department that we know now and >> which provides services considered by the customers to be satisfactory.. >> >> >> >> I may have a different view from Chuck on this, but I would think that >> the inclusion of the VP, IANA (currently Elise Gerich) or as ‘IANA Managing >> Director’ if a title change is required, would make sense in ensuring >> continuity and also providing some level of comfort for current employees. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* >> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager >> >> >> >> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* >> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles >> *P* +1 310 890 9655 >> *P* +61 3 9866 3710 >> *E* donna.austin(a)ariservices.com >> *W* www.ariservices.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=…> >> >> >> >> *Follow us on **Twitter* >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservice…> >> >> >> >> *The information contained in this communication is intended for the >> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally >> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended >> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance >> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all >> copies from your system and notify us immediately.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan >> *Sent:* Monday, 15 June 2015 11:32 PM >> *To:* Mwendwa Kivuva >> *Cc:* Client; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing >> Director >> >> >> >> PTI is supposed to be an entity controlled by ICANN; in essence, a >> subsidiary. This control is achieved by ICANN appointing 3 employees of >> ICANN or PTI. They are not supposed to be "impartial"; they are supposed to >> carry out ICANN's wishes. >> >> >> >> If there are 5 board members, more than one board member is clearly NOT a >> majority. 3 board members is a majority. >> >> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2015 10:14 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > All: >> > >> > In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" >> (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats would be >> appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN employees and one >> being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked to clarify who this >> IANA Managing Director is (since this title does not currently exist). >> >> Here is where there is a problem by having more than one ICANN employee >> as a board member at PTI. It would certainly be difficult to maintain >> impartiality on issues that would have conflict of interest, and as you can >> see, more than one board member is already a majority >> >> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** >

1 0

FW: [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Grace Abuhamad June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Forwarding to the CWG-Stewardship From: <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 12:18 AM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director Dear All, Below are our responses to the questions posed by Greg Shatan regarding the PTI Board. Best regards, Holly and Sharon ===================================== All: In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats would be appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN employees and one being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked to clarify who this IANA Managing Director is (since this title does not currently exist). Specifically: 1. Will the IANA Managing Director be an employee of ICANN or of PTI? [Sidley Response: It is anticipated that the IANA Managing Director (or comparable title for the person who is the most senior manager of the IANA functions) would be an employee of PTI.] 2. Is this intended to be the person in the role currently held by Elise Gerich (currently a VP of ICANN for IANA and Technical Operations)? [Sidley Response: This is intended to be the person who is the most senior manager of the IANA functions.] 3. If this person is an employee of PTI and not ICANN, does that still qualify for purposes of making it an inside board (keeping in mind that ICANN does not "own" PTI, and that the only reason this person is controlled by ICANN is because ICANN controls PTI (which creates a circularity of reasoning))? [Sidley Response: The term ³inside board² has been used to describe a board that is controlled by directors who are employed by either ICANN or PTI.] 4. Can this person be an employee of ICANN and PTI (at least so that question 3 is resolved)? [Sidley Response: The person should be an employee of PTI so as to isolate him or her from ICANN as part of the ³ring-fencing² of PTI.] Some next level questions: 5. Why are we calling this person a "Managing Director," which is not commonly used in US non-profit corporations to my experience? (The typical senior board-appointed offices are President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. Managing Director seems to show up primarily in investment banks and other financial services entities. If this person is intended to be at the helm of PTI, we should use the term President.) [Sidley Response: In relation to use of the title ³managing director,² per our notes from the high intensity call on May 29, 2015 at 3am EST, Jonathan Robinson mentioned that one of the directors would be the ³CEO of PTI,² then this person was referred to by Chuck Gomes and others as the ³managing director of IANA.² This terminology was incorporated into the meeting summary (see attached email fourth bullet under ³Current Status²) and the proposal. In any event , this person should be the most senior manager of the IANA functions. ³President² would be an appropriate title, provided there is no manager more senior than that person. Other options may be ³Chief Executive Officer² or ³Executive Director² or a combination of such titles.] 6. How will the board handle matters related to this person (compensation, etc.)? If she recuses herself, there will only be 4 directors voting. [Sidley Response: The PTI Board could delegate responsibility for determining matters relating to this person such as compensation to a committee that is comprised of a majority of directors who are not PTI employees.] I look forward to clarification and apologize if this is clear somewhere and I missed it. Greg **************************************************************************** ************************ 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. **************************************************************************** ************************

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director
by Mwendwa Kivuva June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

On Jun 15, 2015 11:39 PM, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hey Avri, > > My preference would be that the CEO of PTI be in a non-voting seat yes The CEO should be allowed to break a tie in case of a deadlock at the board. > > Yes would like to see how other similar orgs handle these questions. > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 9:19 PM > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director > > Hi, > > A clarification, saying ex official means saying it is because of another role held. > > Do you also mean that this should be a non voting seat? > I think you do, but want to make sure. > > I would note that ICANN has a voting CEO on its Board. > Does ISOC? How about the RIRs? > Just curious. > > avri > > On 15-Jun-15 16:07, James Gannon wrote: > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > With regards to questions 3, 4 and 6: > > > > As a matter of good governance practice I would have serious concerns > > about an employee of PTI sitting on the board of PTI with the > > exception of the CEO ex officio. > > > > I would appreciate input from others but certainly in Ireland and > > France where I've sat on boards it's would not be considered an > > acceptable practice. And I agree I haven't seen this issue discussed > > and any advice on best practice given to date. > > > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > > *From:*cwg-client-bounces@icann.org > > [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2015 8:15 PM > > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Client > > *Subject:* [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director > > > > > > > > All: > > > > > > > > In the course of discussing the composition of the "inside" > > (controlled) PTI Board, I believe we have stated that three seats > > would be appointed by ICANN, with two being unspecified ICANN > > employees and one being the "IANA Managing Director." I've been asked > > to clarify who this IANA Managing Director is (since this title does > > not currently exist). Specifically: > > > > > > > > 1. Will the IANA Managing Director be an employee of ICANN or of PTI? > > > > 2. Is this intended to be the person in the role currently held by > > Elise Gerich (currently a VP of ICANN for IANA and Technical > > Operations)? > > > > 3. If this person is an employee of PTI and not ICANN, does that > > still qualify for purposes of making it an inside board (keeping in > > mind that ICANN does not "own" PTI, and that the only reason this > > person is controlled by ICANN is because ICANN controls PTI (which > > creates a circularity of reasoning))? > > > > 4. Can this person be an employee of ICANN _and_ PTI (at least so > > that question 3 is resolved)? > > > > > > > > Some next level questions: > > > > > > > > 5. Why are we calling this person a "Managing Director," which is not > > commonly used in US non-profit corporations to my experience? (The > > typical senior board-appointed offices are President, Vice President, > > Secretary and Treasurer. Managing Director seems to show up primarily > > in investment banks and other financial services entities. If this > > person is intended to be at the helm of PTI, we should use the term > > President.) > > > > > > > > 6. How will the board handle matters related to this person > > (compensation, etc.)? If she recuses herself, there will only be 4 > > directors voting. > > > > > > > > I look forward to clarification and apologize if this is clear > > somewhere and I missed it. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1