- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Bipartisan Amendment to DOTCOM Act
by Greg Shatan June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

All: I thought this would be of interest to the CWG as well. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:16 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Bipartisan Amendment to DOTCOM Act To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Colleagues Below is a brief notice, and attached is a copy of a bill that will be considered in Congress tomorrow relating to the IANA transition. Unlike other bills floating in Congress, this one has the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In other words, it has support of both Democrats and Republicans and, implicitly, is likely something the Administration would accept. Thus, though one can never be sure in these matters, I assess it as reasonably likely that this bill will become law. On the merits, my own sense is that many in the community will welcome the provisions of this bill. First, and foremost, it puts Congress on record in favor of the overall goal of having the transition happen, thus laying to rest concerns that some in Congress might seek to short-circuit the process. In more detail (and you can read the short text for yourself, in the attached PDF), the bill provides: 1. There will be 30 legislative days (i.e. working week days) after notification to Congress prior to the transfer going into effect. This will allow Congress to review the terms of the transfer. To stop it, however, would require a separate bill enacted into law. 2. It requires NTIA to certify that the proposed transition meets the five criteria set by the NTIA at the start of the process. This seems a very modest requirement, since if our proposal did not meet that set of requirements, NTIA would not approve it in the first instance. 3. It also requires NTIA to certify that ICANN has approved and implemented all required bylaw changes contained in the final report of the CCWG and the CWG before the transition occurs, i.e. ICANN has to follow through and complete the bylaw revision process before the formal termination of the contract. Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> *Subject:* Bipartisan Amendment to DOTCOM Act Friends: Attached please find a copy of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute that Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and Mr. Shimkus have agreed to. As we mentioned on calls to many of you, we think this amendment represents a responsible path forward the respects the multistakeholder process without abrogating our Committee's oversight of NTIA. Very shortly, we will be noticing a subcommittee markup for this Wednesday, where we expect the subcommittee will favorably report H.R. 805 to the Committee with bipartisan support. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Time frame inquiry (corrected)
by Alissa Cooper June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

My apologies, the first version of this email that was sent was missing one question. Please find the corrected version below. ---- Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks * A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. * Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. * CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE * Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE

1 0

FW: A supplementary financial / legal question from the CWG
by Jonathan Robinson June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

All, Please see below for an update in response to our questions to ICANN. Jonathan & Lise From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org] Sent: 09 June 2015 16:17 To: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr Cc: Grace Abuhamad; Samantha Eisner; Xavier J. Calvez Subject: Re: A supplementary financial / legal question from the CWG Dear Jonathan and Lise, Thank you for your communication and question, and my apologies for the delay in responding. We appreciate that the CWG is not seeking to change ICANN's tax exempt status and thus implementation of the recommendations should be handled with care and consideration, keeping this in mind. We recognize and respect the outcomes achieved by the CWG and CWG's proposal and, once approved through the process, look forward to implementing the recommendations to develop the PTI while preserving the tax exempt status of ICANN. Kind regards, Theresa From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:23 PM To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Subject: A supplementary financial / legal question from the CWG Dear Xavier / Dear Sam, An additional question arising from the work of the CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition has arisen. The CWG currently envisages that the post transition entity (PTI) will be a legally separate entity in the form of a Public Benefit Corporation. However, we have not ruled out the use of a Delaware LLC with many of the characteristics of a California public benefit corporation replicated. The issue you which Sidley have been concerned about the CWG dealing with and using your input to do so relates to the tax exempt status of the entity. We are advised that an LLC (subsidiary of ICANN) would simply benefit from ICANNs tax exempt status whereas PTI as a PBC would need to apply for tax exempt status in its own right. The inheritance of the tax exempt status by PTI as an LLC is a potentially valuable benefit. The specific question for you relates to whether or not you can foresee any likelihood of a PTI making a taxable income and, in any event, is the tax exempt (or not) status of the PTI entity an issue of any materiality? Put another way, is there already or is there any future likelihood of an income being generated within PTI and therefore, is the tax exempt status of the PTI entity an issue? If you are able to assist by providing an ICANN view on these matters that will help the CWG in assessing the options of California PBC versus Delaware LLC for the PTI entity. I trust the above is clear and look forward to any assistance or guidance you can provide. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson

3 2

Statement from the SLE Design Team
by Paul M Kane - CWG June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Dear members of the CWG The SLE Design Team had a productive call with ICANN/IANA last night and the attached statement was agreed. We would like to move that the attached statement is included in the CWG Proposal which should also include two URLs - one to show our past work and the second URL to show the SLE document under development. The second proposal for the CWG consideration is confirmation from the CWG that the Design Team and IANA are authorised to continue working together past the submission of the proposal to the ICG. It may need to be a specific recommendation from the CWG to the ICG that the SLE Design Team continues its work. This proposal need to be agreed with the ICG as we are unsure when the CWG will cease to have any authority to develop the transition proposal. I will be on the CWG call today from approximately 17-30 UTC - apologies for being late - existing day job commitments. Kind regards Paul

3 4

IETF comments on completion and implementation timeline
by Jari Arkko June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Jonathan, Lise, This is the response the IETF came up with when the NTIA and ICG asked about what our estimate is for finalising and implementing the transition proposal. This is mostly for your information, but I wanted to highlight the something specific for you as well. At the end of the message there is also a part that relates to potential interactions with the CWG developments. This is from my mail sent to the ICG list a couple of days ago. > This is a response to a query regarding transition finalisation and > implementation time frames, sent to the IANAPLAN working > group list by the chairs of the IANA Transition Coordination > Group (ICG) on May 27th. > > While I am carrying this response back to the ICG, the substance > of this response has been discussed in the IANAPLAN working > group and the relevant parts of IETF leadership. I believe this > response represents the (rough) consensus opinion that > emerged in the discussion, as well as the current state > of IANA arrangement updates that our leadership bodies > have been working on. > > The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the > implementation of the transition of the stewardship. > In our case, most of the necessary framework is already > in place and implemented in preceding years. > > The remaining step is an updated agreement with > ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are > outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft > draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt: > > o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It > is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties > acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. > > o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol > parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent > operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as > part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry > out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the > current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA > [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent > operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of > a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that > ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to > minimize disruption in the use of the protocol parameters registries > or other resources currently located at iana.org. > > The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has > decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level > Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated > agreement. They have drafted the update and from our > perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated > agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially > complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination > as a final step. > > Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions > with other parts of the process may bring additional > tasks that need to be executed either before or > after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs, > and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning > the treatment of IANA trademarks and domains. The > IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this, > if asked. We are awaiting coordination on this > to complete, but see no problem in speedy > execution once the decision is made. From our > perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition, > however. > > In addition, the names community has proposed the > creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI). If the existing > agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place > and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF > transition would take place as described above. That is > our preference. If the final details of the PTI plan require > further action from the IETF, more work and community > agreement would be required. The timeline for that work > cannot be set until the scope is known. > > Jari Arkko, IETF Chair > (reporting his summary of the situation) > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

1 0

Agenda for Meeting #58
by Grace Abuhamad June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

All resending the agenda in case it was missed yesterday. Proposed Agenda for 9 June 1. Opening Remarks 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 4. Last Review of Final Proposal 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

For your review - version 5
by Marika Konings June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Dear All, In order to facilitate the discussion and review of the latest version of the proposal, the Co-Chairs have reviewed the document and suggested a number of edits / responses to address the remaining comments that they believe reflect the views of the CWG-Stewardship. As a result, those items have been 'unflagged' (no longer highlighted in yellow) so that the focus of today's call can be on those items that require CWG input (highlighted in yellow). Of course, if you disagree with any of the proposed edits or believe further discussion is needed on some of these unflagged comments, please share those with the list so these items can be marked accordingly. Note that in addition to the edits proposed by the Co-Chairs, a number of minor edits have been included (in redline) that were provided by Sidley to the client committee as well as updates to the table of content, the escalation mechanisms flow charts to reflect the latest state Annex J and the emergency process figure (only formatting updates). Best regards, Marika

2 1

Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Dear all, Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits listed below. Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday 23:59 UTC. If you don¹t have time to read the whole proposal, I¹ve highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define ³Review Team Liaison² per Sidley¹s comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today¹s call: > * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent > * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure > * Paragraph 167: removed sentence > * Paragraph 170: Removed the word ³multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' > instead) > * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to > section II) > * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG > composition) > * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace

12 40

Notes and Recordings DT-A | 08 June
by Brenda Brewer June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Dear all, The notes and recordings for the CWG IANA DT-A Meeting #4 on 08 June are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776258 Kind regards, Brenda Notes Welcome chair DTA Change of working format CWG needs to endorse approach suggested by DTA To be raised by Paul 1) Update from Kim, and Adam on progress of formulating an acceptable SLE Jay Dailey on the call Kim Davies: Green light to Evolve Document and needs further development. The draft circulated calls out principles Adam: Question to group: Group agree to work together post 8 June 2015? Post June 8 deadline? What is standing of the group post 8 June. once the CWG has completed its proposal? Note work continue under CWG umbrella Jay: Customer needs to be involved in the discussions Conclusion: Adam and Kim will continue to work and report to group on a weekly basis iii) Approval of a statement from the SLE Design Team to be included in the Proposal (attached). Run through of the document by Bernie Turcotte Background section Change word suggesting, -> recommending No objection (accepted) IRT => IFRT Jeff Ackhaus: Last sentence: not clear to what wide time window is referring to. Only recently, some participant raise that NTIA SLA should be used. Not acceptable to DTA: NTIA no longer part post transition. SLA no longer fit for purpose. Clarifying language may needed. Principle section Paragraph 1. No comments 2. No comments Patricio: should be reported by IANA. Should external parties be alowed be informed Raw data is already made available. Should be re-iterated. Agreed 3.Relevance: Elaine: it is confusing Jay: Rewrote section. Initial rlevance was for analysis. Not strong enough meaning.. Attempt to narrow, focus on customers. Critical measures was already in Kim: Distinction between what IANA is to measure and report on and threshold for none compliance Community should define what it considers relevant versus threshold measures (critical metrics) Patricio: Relevant data is data that should be checked for compliance. Question: Relevant what is deemed relevant for community. Kim: guard against that every is measured is part of threshold Analysis for customer service Proposed wording insert word " customer" -> customer critical metrics 4. Clear definition No Comments 5 Definition of thresholds Jay: should be set on 'Initial" data Include "Initial" Threshold should be set against expected service level. Starting point is what IANA is doing. Currently estimation of what DT A thinks is reasonable. Now need to be cautious, to set wrong expectations. Based on actual data, not prescribe Definition of threshold taken on board, but measurement are needed Specific Threshold undefined an define until data has been collected Alternatively: set threshold but note it needs to be underpinned later Include word Initial in document, and include in SLE it self additional language 6. Review Process No Comment 7. Regular Reporting Near real time seems excessive Add "As and when collected" after real time Section Capturing status-quo Paragraph 1. No comments Paragraph A: No comments Paragraph B: No comments Paragraph C: No comments Paragraph D: No comments Monitoring Past Performance Minor grammatical error Jay: Use of the word registry to refer is confusing (IANA also registry), registry needs to be ameneded Agreed Omit text to clarify need to clarify needs to Escalations No comments Comments of Members Elaine Supported with edits Jeff: Ibidem Patricio: supported Jay: supported Paul: supported Move forward to CWG to be included v) Volunteers to give Presentations for participants at ICANN meeting in BA interested in the work of the SLE Working Group. Invite members DTA to present for various groups Jay: Jeff: Will be at the meeting _> gTLD registry Patricio: present LACTLD and at ccNSO Jay: Tech day Slides: prepare standard slide deck AOB Conclude edits today Closure 21.03 UTC

1 0