- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool
by Alan Greenberg June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

Greg, I do not follow your #2. ICANN will certainly need to budget for these expenses, but why "these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent")"? Everything related to IANA should be within PTI, other than services that under contract, it gets from ICANN. If IANA needs work done by external contractors, certainly the funding will ultimately come from ICANN, but it should be channelled through IANA. Alan At 03/06/2015 11:27 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >David, > >Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not >surprised that IANA staff has been directly >involved in development and innovation for the >systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. > >The examples that were given earlier, though, >were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed >skepticism that these were the result of R&D >carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to >say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps >they were just inapposite examples. More >on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, >might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). > >In terms of budgeting for the near future, it >sounds like appropriate funds would need to be >allocated for development and innovation by PTI, >due to (1) the plan "to impose a vast array of >new service level requirements for the IANA >functions (and not just naming-related >functions) that will need to be monitored", >since "In order to meet these new requirements, >non-trivial amounts of software development >will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA >staff" and (2) the replacement of aging systems. > >âMy overall takeaway then is: > >1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing >the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. >2. ICANN will also need to budget for >IANA-related expenses and activities carried out >by employees and resources other than the IANA >staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). >3. PTI will need to budget for development and >procurement relating to replacing aging software >systems and to meeting any new requirements put >in place as part of the transition, and for any >other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. >4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D >relating to innovations relating to inputs to >the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and >IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. > >Greg > > > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad ><<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>david.conrad(a)icann.org> wrote: >Greg, > >Apologies for the slow response a bit buried in stuff right now.

1 0

Comment on III.A.ii (131 ff) Re: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2
by Andrew Sullivan June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Hi, I know I've said this before, so I won't go on, but it seems more than a little strange to be making a "final" proposal that includes a large section that basically says, "We ran out of time to do this." I know why that happened, but it is still awfully hard to swallow such a thing as the "final" document. Why not add here in ¶ 137 the following sentences: ---%<---cut here--- In the interests of changing as few things as possible at the moment of transition, the DT recommends making the SLEs exactly the same as the SLAs under the NTIA contract for a period of six months. At the end of that six months, the new SLEs as currently under development can be adopted. This permits the adoption of new SLEs more in keeping with actual IANA performance, while maintaining the old instrument of measurement across the horizon of the transition. --->%---cut here--- I'm not especially wedded to the 6 months, though I think much shorter would be ill-advised. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule
by Grace Abuhamad June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship. As I noted on the call Tuesday: we made sure that the CWG-Stewardship sessions do not overlap with the CCWG-Accountability sessions or the ICG sessions. Thursday, June 18th: * ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: * ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: * CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) * IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: * CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) * CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: * CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) * ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00)

2 3

Agenda for Meeting #57 (4 June)
by Grace Abuhamad June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Dear all, Here is the agenda for tomorrow¹s call: Proposed Agenda 1. Opening Remarks 2. Update on Public Comments a. Mechanics & process b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole) c. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 4. 2nd Reading of Final Proposal 5. CCWG-Accountability a. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal b. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June 6. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 7. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley 8. AOB 9. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool
by Grace Abuhamad June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Dear all, Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public Comment Review Tool 1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) DT O DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. 2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) DT O DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) DT O / DT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. 4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate should be clarified (IPC) CWG DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability process. 5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be provided: - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. Best, Grace From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto(a)icann.org)" <dto(a)icann.org> Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. Chuck · Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) DT O CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here. · CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) DT O CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal. · Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) DT O / DT F CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. · PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate should be clarified (IPC) CWG CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or ³gold plating², noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms. · Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. Thanks, Marika

3 3

GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model
by Martin Boyle June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Jonathan, In one of Friday's calls I noted the imbalance between GNSO and ccNSO (and wider ccTLD) engagement in the various entities the model is putting in place. You responded that the GNSO is not an homogenous organisation. I let the discussion drop, not because I was happy with the response, but because I was getting no traction in the discussion and did not want to delay it any further. However, I would like to at least put on the record why I think the current imbalance is wrong and gives too much say to a GNSO-skewed view of the IANA. I'm sure that the traditional balance in favour of the gTLD-centric view of the universe works fine in an ICANN setting, given that most of this is about policy-making and relatively little of this implicates ccTLDs. This is the main reason for the disproportionate funding of ICANN's costs between the GNSO and ccNSO: simply put, ccTLDs use considerably less of ICANN's resources. However, for the IANA, without exact figures to hand, I would expect the balance in use between ccTLDs and gTLDs of the IANA services to be much more equal and most ccTLDs recognise the need for fair funding of the IANA functions operation. Certainly I'd say we - gs and cs - have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator. But a serious alarm went up for me a few weeks ago when I had an extended exchange on list with Chuck and Milton about ICANN instructions to IANA. (For many of you, this must have seemed like an esoteric discussion. I'd say it was symptomatic of a fundamental issue that we are failing to address.) The gTLD view of life (in this case) was all about ICANN giving instructions to the IANA functions operator. That is certainly not the case for ccTLDs, but I got a lot of abuse for pointing this out. It only was resolved when the ICANN (ccNSO-focussed) secretariat was asked to clarify. In a post transition world, I'm not sure how easy it we will be able to draw on this experience and knowledge to back up a point. That is my fundamental concern about the imbalance between the ccNSO and GNSO. Especially a concern as the constituent parts of the GNSO are heavily policy focussed. It will be so easy for the GNSO representatives in various discussions to focus on gTLD issues (ignoring that ccTLD delegations and redelegations are actually usually well outside an ICANNic framework) and misshape the discussion accordingly. I'm not sure that the current proposed imbalance will be sustainable in the long term unless it is very clear that different needs are respected. (In the same way, in the ccTLD world, we need to be very cautious about not applying inappropriate blanket rules.) Simply ignoring the significant number of ccTLD comments about the imbalance might be an easy solution, but it is not a good compromise. I hope that this helps colleagues understand my very real concerns about our direction of travel. Martin

6 14

For your review - DT M responses (escalation mechanisms)
by Marika Konings June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the proposed responses to some of the comments related to escalation mechanisms that have been developed by DT M. Note that DT M is still considering, with input from DT C, its response to a comment from AFRALO which suggested that the PTI Board should be able to ask for an SIFR. As soon as the DT M / DT C have come to agreement on that issue the proposed response will be shared with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika * Escalation by CSC to GNSO and ccNSO is adding a layer of escalation that may not be necessary. CSC could call for SIFR instead. (Centre for Democracy & Technology) - DT M Proposed CWG Response: The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. Escalation to IFR was considered beyond the scope of the CSC, instead as any issues raised would relate directly to the technical performance of IANA, ccNSO and GNSO were considered to have direct access to broader community input on this issue and would be in a position to make an assessment on appropriate next steps. The GNSO and ccNSO step is an approval step with multi-stakeholder involvement, not an escalation mechanism as such. Having only the CSC initiate an SIFR may not be appropriate considering its limited remit and size. * Question from intensive working sessions: Should CWG consider whether GNSO should be changed to RySG - ccNSO and RySG would consider whether it should be escalated to a multi-stakeholder process to determine next steps? Proposed CWG Response: DT M proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organizations are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholders into separate SGs and Constituencies. The ccNSO is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity. * Inconsistencies between CSC and its responsibilities and the IFR (NCSG) - DT M Proposed CWG Response: The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. As a result, there may be inconsistencies between CSC and IFR escalation mechanisms. We believe these have been addressed in the next iteration of the proposal. * All deliberations and output should be transparent. CSC should not escalate to ccNSO or GNSO as these are policy bodies. (ALAC) - DT C Proposed CWG Response: DT M understands the concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. Furthermore, DT M notes that GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation of adopted GNSO policies, and as such can raise alarms and request a SIFR. Also, DT M observes that the GNSO is about more than only policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.

1 0

Revised DT-F section.
by Alan Greenberg June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Attached please find the revised section III.A.iii of the CWG Proposal. Note that sub-heading number III.A.iii.a is not required, since there is no III.AAA.iii.b. This revision incorporates everything that was in the former Annex N, and that Annex is no longer required. Alan

1 0

Notes and Recordings DT-M | 2 June
by Brenda Brewer June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, transcript and recordings for the CWG IANA DT-M Meeting on 2 June will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241%20> Kind regards, Brenda Notes Footnote 36 - consider timing of this work. DT to review section 4 (implementation considerations) to determine whether any updates could/should be made there to reflect work that is needed in relation to mediation options. DT M / DT C to co-ordinate where input regarding punch list items #21 - 23 - where will the agreed approach be incorporated? ccNSO & GNSO to undertake further work on this issue - might be another implementation item to be included in section 4. DT M to consider whether esclation in problem management in step 4 should be to ccNSO/GNSO or ccNSO/RySG. Escalation to PTI Board can be a useful step as it could result in correction of issue, even if changes are small that PTI Board is able to correct the issue if it has not been addressed before by PTI staff. If issue is not addressed by PTI Board, issue would be escalated to ccNSO/GNSO. Should PTI Board be able to ask for review by SIFR? PTI Board could request SIFR and submit this request to the ICANN Board. ICANN Board with community input could then make a decision on whether or not an SIFR is initiated. PTI Board should not be making such a request to the CSC. DT N/SR/X to consider this update as part of the separation process annex. DT M also consider making reference to this in the section (for example as a footnote) on escalation mechanisms, following CWG agreement on including this. DTM proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organization organization are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholder into separate SGs and Constituencies. In the ccNSO the is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity. In response to ALAC comment: DT M understands concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. DT M also notes that GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation the policis made, and can raise alarms and request a SIFR; 2. GNSO is about more than policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #56 2 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 56 on 2 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777826 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Avri to provide clarification text Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53. Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work Notes Draft Final Proposal available on Wiki here: <https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg> https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. 1. Opening Remarks * first version of final proposal is out. * opportunity to wrap up * proposing to do a "page turn" to read through any areas and provide comments 2. Recap of the High Intensity Meetings * Solid sessions that tackles scope of PTI Board, composition, IFR, etc. * Made a lot of progress -- very encouraging 3. Update on Public Comments * Mechanics & process: 55 submissions total; DTs are working on their action items and the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting * Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole): two responsibilities: responding to actions and reviewing responses provided in Review Tool * Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses: the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting 4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal * Follow up call with Xavier from ICANN Finance and expect to receive responses today * Have yet to hear anything from ICANN Legal but this has been escalated with Theresa Swinehart 5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal Focus on updates to Sections III, IV, V Paragraph 98: Iron-out issues regarding transferring IANA to PTI (have been limited to IANA naming functions but this creates awkwardness) Paragraph 102: * take out "provisional" * add additional "independent" directors * add sentence: "CWG-Stewardship requires that the independent PTI Board members be selected through an appropriately rigorous selection method for which the NomCom is qualified" Note from Sidley: ICANN Board Directors are not considered "insiders". The idea is to be independent of ICANN management. Paragraph 106: Martin put a proposal for wording on the CWG-Stewardship list: add to the end: "However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not part of the IANA functions operation contract. In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN." Paragraph 111: Martin suggested an edit for this paragraph Paragraph 113: Chuck made comments. Provide clarity about RFP Action: Avri to provide clarification text For Changes to Root Zone Management... --> DT-F will provide a new version shortly that will cover both main text and Annex Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized Paragraph 150 change 3 months to "9 months" No objection to "ring-fenced" funds Annex F: update membership (note an extra person in RySG where not supposed to be) 6. CCWG-Accountability * Coordination update: CCWG chairs will attend webinars; close communication and coordination for upcoming ICANN 53 meeting * Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal: important aspect of the proposal with Sidley's help * CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June: chairs will provide response to CCWG public comment (since CCWG chairs provided comments in CWG PC) 7. Overall Timeline / Milestones * Communications: big responsibility on SO/AC appointed members * Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?): proposed at 6:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC * Sessions at ICANN 53: Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53. 8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work 9. AOB 10. Closing Remarks You'll see a new draft of the document very shortly!

1 0