- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Final Transition Proposal + Agenda for Meeting #58
by Marika Konings June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for meeting #58. We have also attached the final proposal which includes the new information from ICANN Finance (as an Annex to Section IV), as well as the edits and comments received from Chuck, Jonathan, Avri, Andrew, Greg, Donna, Elise, Martin, Milton and Sidley. Please note that you will find two versions attached: one version that includes all comments and edits received, and a second version in which we¹ve accepted all the comments and edits that appeared non-controversial so that only the comments / edits remain that appear to require further CWG input / discussion. Obviously, if we¹ve missed any items that you think warrant further discussion or any edits you do not agree with, please flag those accordingly so we can add these to version 2 which will be used to facilitate the CWG discussion during tomorrow¹s meeting. Similarly, if there are any items that can be clarified or resolved prior to the meeting via the list, please suggest so accordingly. Best regards, Marika 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

2 1

FW: Costings associatted with IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Jonathan Robinson June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

All, Please see attached from ICANN finance. We received it late Thursday last week but somehow it was not sent on. Apologies. It is in response to the12 May 2015 email request (copied below) Regards, Jonathan & Lise Dear Xavier, I am writing to you on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions and in my capacity as co-chair of the CWG together with Lise Fuhr. I know that you are aware of the submission by the CWG into the comment period for the ICANN FY2016 budget. However, the CWG has specifically requested that I ask you to review our current draft proposal for cost implications and that you provide any comments and further information that you are able to. In particular, the proposal envisages moving from the current model of functional separation of the IANA unit within ICANN to a structure and mode of operation that is both functionally and legally separate. Our legal advisers have provided an indication of the basic costs associated with this type of structure and these are attached for your reference. However, these basic legal costs will not cover all of the issues and changes in cost. Therefore, as part of understanding the implications of the proposed transition, it will be very helpful to have your considered view of the future costs and the obvious implications for the 2016 and future ICANN budgets. Thank-you in advance for your assistance in dealing with this question. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson On behalf of the CWG

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Chuck, I can't answer on behalf of Olivier, but will on my own behalf. WGs explicitly do not limit participation (and the equivalent of voting - that is, being an equal player in reaching consensus). Deliberations of the GNSO do NOT have that. I fully understand that the GNSO is not the GNSO Council, just as At-Large is not the ALAC, but in both cases, it is the GNSO Council and the ALAC that makes statements and recommendations on behalf of the larger body. In answer to a question you posed to Elise - "Can you give an example of what kind of policy related to IANA services that would be of high interest to other community members and not also ccTLD and gTLD registries?", I will note that perhaps the Registries will always have the same concerns as others. Even if that were the case, as an open transparent organization, we should not presume that there will ALWAYS be full synergy between registries and the rest of the community. The optics of it are all wrong. I instead ask the opposite question. If you believe that there is a large degree of synergy between registries and the rest of the community, why NOT allow us to all participate. What are we protecting against here? Alan At 05/06/2015 10:49 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Olivier, > >I want to respond to just the following paragraph of your message: > >" As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be >recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly >imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private >Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments >being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and >balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore >highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western >Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical >path of the escalation, this is not it." > >In my opinion you are doing what many often do and that is equating >the GNSO to the GNSO Council. In fact you even mention the >Council. It is critical to recognize the following about the GNSO >and the GNSO Council: >1. The majority of what goes on in the GNSO does not happen on the Council. >2. The Council is simply the management body of the GNSO; it is not >where the work happens. >3. The work of the GNSO happens in working groups that are >completely open to everyone and are not governed by the rules that >determine the makeup of the Council. >4. In the end of a process, the Council's role is simply to confirm >that WG guidelines were followed including that best efforts were >made to involve all impacted parties and that everyone was given the >opportunity to participate. > >To claim that " the GNSO is highly imbalanced " is essentially to >say that the design of WGs is imbalanced. If you believe that, I >ask you to explain to me how that is the case so it can be corrected. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond >Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:59 AM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process > >Hello all, > >I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to >commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call >and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it >clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the >multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the >GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has >concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a >stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with >Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in >the escalation process. > >In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all >driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas >that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the >escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the >escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its >escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and >please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In >order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at >the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation. > >As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have >stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should >comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That >said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed >that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds >are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in >the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the >GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, >this would require Bylaw Changes. > >As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised >that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, >with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and >with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. >Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for >Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased >in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if >we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the >escalation, this is not it. > >I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder >consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path >on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, >is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the >ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is >multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where >stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a >complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by >other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance >means having the right to vote, not just comment. > >I look forward to your responses. > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier >_______________________________________________ >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

4 4

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley Comments to CWG Proposal
by James Gannon June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

I had a quick read through these and want to call particular attention to the proposed changes on pg. 113, 114. Sidley have proposed some changes to the scoring for the implementation of a number of the by-laws required. The stress testing has been highlighted as an important component by a number of external observers including the US Congress, given Sidley’s expertise in this area I suggest that these changes are well informed and should be incorporated and the relevant stress tests be recalculated. -James From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 1:51 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Sidley Comments to CWG Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached are our comments to the latest draft proposal. Please let us know if you have any questions on our mark-up. We look forward to discussing on Tuesday. Best regards, Holly, Sharon & Josh SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** 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

8th June, 2000hrs UTC - SLE call - TODAY
by Paul M Kane - CWG June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Dear all May I remind you that we have an SLE Design Team call with IANA at 2000hrs today. ICANN will you please send out the dial-in details. Over the last few days, I have been drafting a statement which, I hope, captures the progress to date of this Design Team in it's productive relations with IANA and ICANN in developing the Service Level Expectations document. I have taken the liberty of discussing this draft statement with IANA and ICANN staff and they are in agreement with its contents. I would appreciate it if you would give it your consideration and I recommend the attached statement for your approval and its inclusion in the CWG proposal. May I propose the following Agenda for today's call: i) Update from Kim, and Adam on progress of formulating an acceptable SLE ii) An agreement from the Working Group to work with IANA staff to capture all of IANA's processes and complete the SLE after the 8th June. iii) Approval of a statement from the SLE Design Team to be included in the Proposal (attached). iv) Volunteers to give Presentations for participants at ICANN meeting in BA interested in the work of the SLE Working Group. v) Any other business. <><> Many thanks Best Paul

1 0

FinalTransitionProposal_v3
by Lindeberg, Elise June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Thanks for all your work Marika and Brenda - my comments...just a few minutes over midnight ... Best Elise

1 0

FW: Fate of .int
by Grace Abuhamad June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill On 6/5/15, 7:43 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >PLEASE FORWARD TO CWG-Stewardship > >================================= > >I see that the matter of .int continues to be discussed on this list. I >refer to Milton's message at: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003391.html > >As Milton correctly points out, .int is not used by governments, it is >used >by intergovernmental organizations. And the representatives in GAC are >typically not the people who represent governments in, say, ILO or WHO. > >As I've pointed out before on this list, there was a formal process to >consult the interested parties, intergovernmental organizations, and the >result was the unanimous approval of Recommendation ITU-T E.910. > >I don't see any reason to posit that the requirements and desires of >intergovernmental organizations have changed since the approval of E.910, >so >I don't understand why implementation, to the extent practicable, of E.910 >should not be made part of the transition. > >To be clear: I am formally asking this group to include in its transition >proposal the requirement that E.910 be implemented to the extent >practicable >as part of the transition. > >Best, >Richard >

3 2

CWG Wiki webpage for ICANN 53 Buenos Aires
by Brenda Brewer June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Dear CWG, A wiki page has been created with ICANN 53 Buenos Aires information specifically of interest to the CWG. Updates will be made as they become available. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778448> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778448 Also, calendar invites will soon be sent for remote participation at the ICANN 53 meetings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Update on the last items from the call 4th June
by Lise Fuhr June 7, 2015

June 7, 2015

Hi All, I realise that I never sent this to you - just made it ready for sending - better late than never.. As promised at the last CWG call, we send you a written update on the item 5-7 on the agenda. 5. CCWG-Accountability a. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal As instructed by the Client Committee Wednesday 3rd June, Sidley has phrased the conditionality so that if the requirement are not met then the proposal will require revision. Jonathan sent Sidley's rider and their comments to the CWG proposal to the CWG group Thursday 4th of June. Please read it and we will discuss it during the next call Tuesday 9th of June. b. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment closed yesterday The CWG chairs have sent comments to the CCWG draft proposal to the chairs of the CCWG and submitted it. Jonathan sent a copy of the comments to the CWG group on Wednesday 3rd June. 6. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications and c. Sessions at ICANN 53 Regarding the communication it is important that participants and members help educating and informing the community regarding the proposal - you are ambassadors for our work. We have all made great efforts and sacrifices in order to build a solid well-considered piece of work that of course and necessarily contain compromises. Now we need to you all to inform and educate the different groups to aide in consideration for approval and support in BA. b. Webinars on 11 June There will be two webinars on Thursday 11th of June. The CWG-chair will run the webinars - one during the morning and one early afternoon. The webinars will be based on a slide-deck, that we will send to the CWG group to use for educating their respective SO or AC and once more we encourage you all to use the slides. We will have help from Xplane in doing the graphics to have a comprehensive and explanatory set of slides. We have decides to offer live interpretation, but participants need to sign up for interpretation before the webinar. 7. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley Wednesday 3rd June the Client Committee sent instructions to Sidley regarding: 1. The CWG's requirements in order to finish the proposal 2. The CWG's requirements to support the proposal in B.A. 3. The CWG's potential requirements post B.A. and/or with implementation The following need to be secured by Sidley in advance of concluding the final proposal for send-off next week. A. A form of language which effectively captures the conditional nature of the proposal i.e. that the proposal is valid if and only if adequate accountability mechanisms are in place. These mechanisms are currently contemplated by the CWG in conjunction with the CCWG B. A confirmation around the use (or not) of the ICANN bylaws as described in the CWG proposal in order to capture the necessary components of the CWG proposal that need to be enshrined in the ICANN bylaws. C. A confirmation that the final proposal is consistent with Sidley's advice given to date and, to the extent that it is not, what changes are required. The CWG chairs find that the response from Sidley from 4th June includes all these issues. As mentioned earlier this is to be discussed during the third reading of the proposal on Tuesday 9th June. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

1 0

Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
by Gomes, Chuck June 6, 2015

June 6, 2015

Here is DT-M’s final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO’s suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: “DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so.” If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

10 25