- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
by Alan Greenberg May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

At this stage, as I understan things, .int is most definitely outside of GNSO scope. Alan At 26/05/2015 12:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Martin, > >I also oppose writing policy on the fly. My main point is that when >policy is developed for .int it will be a community issue not just the GNSO. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:29 PM >To: Gomes, Chuck; avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain > >That might be appropriate, Chuck, but at this stage isn't it just >assessing what existing policy might be implicated/at stake? > >Given the nature of .int, the real assessment has to be in the GAC, >but that needs to be done in the light of what policy already exist >and what might be impacted. I'm not sure I'd want unintentional (or >at least unexplained) over-turning of policy. > >Just at the moment I fear that we are (re)writing policy on the fly >and that worries me. Setting rules for a tightly defined TLD like >.int could certainly have implications for some gTLDs and I can just >imagine the possible attempts to scope creep to ccTLDs. > >Martin > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >Sent: 26 May 2015 16:31 >To: Martin Boyle; avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain > >Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG? It >seems so to me. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM >To: avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain > >I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to >be a bit amiss. > >By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, >but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after >transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish >to carry this out. > >In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" >assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications. > >1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could >see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this >for community gTLDs? Are we following them? > >2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although >the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no >anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN >have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not >sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to >separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The >argument could be that those operating the elements of the >infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, >in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators? > >Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification >for the review? That assessment process could start immediately >after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO >but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone >maintainer having very clear interests. > > >MB > > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain > >Hi, > >Seems like a good formulation. > >avri > > >On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review > > from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the > > IANA stewardship transition. > > > > > > > > > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

9 17

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting 27 May
by Brenda Brewer May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 27 May are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895649> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895649 Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes #125: Proposed DT O response: PTI should develop a strategic plan which should outline strategic priorities (at a minimum every 4 years, similar to ICANN's strategic plan), while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the community. Fully approved budget to be done on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least 9 months in advance of the fiscal year. It is the expectation that the ICANN Board should aim to approve the PTI budget at least three months in advance of the fiscal year. It is the view of DT O that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the ICANN Budget (similar to the special community budget request, for example). See also the comment by .nz. DT O agrees with AFNIC's suggetion for an annual independent financial audit. DT O notes that the final paragraph is expected to be addressed by the CWG in the context of the PTI structure and composition. #283: DT O is of the view that benchmarking should be done against the cost estimates that ICANN finance is expected to provide (as requested by the CWG Chairs) not the $2.3 M as suggested by the commenter. Please also refer to the recommendations made by the CWG in the relevant annex of the proposal. #316: DT O appreciates the feedback provided and notes there is no conflict between the two approaches. #317: DT O appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps are customised for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). #319: DT O 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.

1 0

Fate of the .INT domain
by Lindeberg, Elise May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment. On earlier process: NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of the .int domain, - as part of the development of a IANA transition proposal, - so the topic is not "invented" by members of the CWG. I was set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future administration of the .int. domain. The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int. A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole on the 16th of April. "Dear Lise and Jonathan I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H. >From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also. Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Elise" I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not received any comments re alternative text. On the way forward/final proposal: I agree that we shouldn't try to design the future solution on .int administration in the final CWG proposal - from the discussion online we couldn't do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders, inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don't see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition. Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947

10 20

Time frame inquiry
by Alissa Cooper May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

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: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, 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 the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. 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

1 0

Public comment action items
by Marika Konings May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Dear All, Per today's CWG-Stewardship meeting, please find attached an overview of the action items that were identified in the public comment review tool circulated earlier today, including colour coding to reflect the relevant design teams that are hopefully in a position to indicate a possible response, whether the comment has already been dealt with in subsequent conversations or whether it is an issue that warrants CWG consideration. Best regards, Marika

2 1

For your review: updated public comment review tool
by Marika Konings May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated public comment review tool which now also includes those comments that were received after the deadline. For the record, 53 submissions have been received in total. As the comments from Chuck were received after staff had started work on the updated version, you'll find included a compare versions document that will highlight the comments included by Chuck on the 22 May version as well as the comments that were added in this updated version. Best regards, Marika From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday 22 May 2015 20:34 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review: public comment summary and review tool Dear all, Staff has compiled a summary overview of the pubic comment submissions and filled out a public comment review tool, noting responses and specific action items for the CWG-Stewardship to consider. Please review these documents and suggest edits based on your assessment of the public comment submissions. The proposed actions for the CWG-Stewardship are highlighted in blue in the response column (far right). The Public Comment Review Tool is very long and may be difficult to read. This is due to staff's approach in thorough and detailed review. We will provide a more digestible, action-focused, version of this tool for Tuesday's meeting. We are providing the long version to you today to demonstrate our work progress and preparation for next week's high-intensity meetings. While the Public Comment Review Tool is very detailed, the summary overview is presented in a presentation format and focuses more on the "bigger picture". Depending on your review-style, you may be inclined to start with one or the other document. Also, please note that these documents incorporate all (44) submissions received up until the deadline on 20 May at 23:59 UTC. As of 22 May at 16:00 UTC, there are (7) late submissions. These submissions have not yet been incorporated in this document but will be added in time for the high-intensity meetings (along with the submissions received based on the extension for those who are reliant on translations). As a reminder, Brenda kindly pulled all the submissions together on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/o5A0Aw. You can download all the files at once (like a zip file) by clicking on the "download all" button at the bottom left side of the macro. Have a good (submission-reading-filled) weekend, Grace

4 5

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #49 - 26 May
by Brenda Brewer May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #49 - 26 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53774450 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: staff to collect actions and color-code for DT Action: (Grace) to follow up with ICANN Legal for timeline of response for any question on Punch List that is pending response ACTION: Client Committee: Put out a description of what we have, include key-decisions and main questions Notes Schedule for high intensity (all times in UTC) Thursday 28 May 11:00 - 13:00 15:00 - 17:00 19:00 - 21:00 Friday 29 May 07:00 - 09:00 10:00 - 12:00 14:00 - 16:00 Upcoming dates & milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 8 June -- submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 11 June -- absolute last date for SO/AC consideration for BA ("drop dead" date) * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Notes: Olivier on phone only for now Lise sends apologies for today 1. Opening Remarks Overview of agenda 2. Public comment * * 53 submissions received -- possible more submissions until 23:59 UTC today (for translation extension) * CWG to review and consider the following questions: Any comments missed (in terms of action items)? Any actions that are already addressed? Any incomplete responses? * These are draft responses provided by staff but subject to CWG-Stewardship review * Clarifications: 2 submissions (KISA and Norid) were duplicates and will be corrected shortly. These submissions were not duplicates in the review analysis. Also, for issues with reading PDF templates, please download & save the document (this should resolve the issue) * Freeze numbering as listed in 26 May version * Weighting comments by group/individual -- difficult to do, but perhaps best solution is to separate analysis by individual / group and see if there are any differences between those. * Focus on substance of comments Action: staff to collect actions and color-code for DT 3. Punch List Action: (Grace) to follow up with ICANN Legal for timeline of response for any question on Punch List that is pending response Item: PTI Board (item 4 and 5) - Discussed, in context of PTI being subsidiary and separability, and holding ICANN accountable What is missing a holistic view of where we are at the moment: Need to capture where we are at this stage of discussion. Suggestion: ask Sidley such a document? Put out a description of what we have, include key-decisions and main questions Use Client committee to discuss ACTION: Client Committee Item 20: SLE Update DT-A DT-A work in conjunction with IANA to document properly. Start with high-level approach. Progress made. Optimistic about reaching 8 June deadline Item 6-10 , IANA Function review DT-N Item 11- 16 A (CSC, DT-C) Additional questions Sidley (highlighted in yellow) Item 17 -19 Term Sheet * * Based on first public document * Blue language : * Black language: substantive items and comments to consider * Comparison an differences to IANA contract * Reference to proposal * What kind of feed-back is expected? * Provide comments and responses to questions or make own revisions * Advise Sidley: (Set-up) Design team that is responsible for term sheet, to take up the pen.and revise this version. Challenge: no Design team assigned. Item for discussion: How to develop Term Sheet as part of implementation part of the proposal. ITEM 30-31 RZM Why are they on the Punch List? Suggestion to close them out Suggestion to be marked on Punch List Item 32 to stay on list Re-format Punch List to make it more usable 4. Forward planning (including high intensity) No comments 5. Instructions to Sidley a. Costs to date b. Scope of work Is scope still accurate? Is there future role (post submission to chartering organizations)? c. Role for Sidley in BA? d. Future role? Implementation? 6. AOB a. WSIS update (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) CCWG IG closely works with ICANN. Session on Wednesday at WSIS, showcase ICG, CWG Stewardship, Crisp and IANAPlan groups. CCWG IG showcase work as well at IGF in November Goal is to inform audience on process. First draft for panel to staff. Question: provide feed-back in order to ensure process is adequately presented at WSIS, preferably by Wednesday COB. 7. Closing Remarks Call closed at 19.00 UTC

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Alan Greenberg May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI Board should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the PTI Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board). In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively little to do in a steady-state situation where everything is working well. However, if things are NOT going well, it is the PTI Board that would need to be the first line of recourse in fixing it, and it must have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly and effectively. Alan At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Avri, > >It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup is the >right fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of them. > >I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of like the >idea of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the ccNSO >and GNSO serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN membership structure, >the ccNSO or GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they >were not accountability. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition > >Hi, > >I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of >the PTI Board. > >Specifically > >On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote: > > * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of > > having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should > have a majority > > of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 > > ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom. > >Personally, I propose: > >1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board >1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President >or Executive Director or their designee >3 Nomcom Selections >various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions > >This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, >but would be large enough for some degree of diversity. > >While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, >given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of >the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the >perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization. > >It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more >appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual >basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using >a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary >over time, including considerations such as operational >experience, financial skill, international legal >knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, >community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design >expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community >insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to >the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and >needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with >ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, >according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices. > >In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain >decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most >appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid >having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves >it under the community's control. > > >thanks >avri > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >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

14 41

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Alan Greenberg May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

As I see it, the PTI Board is there to handle the more mundane things that a company mus do, AND to handle exceptional situations (such as severe operational problems as reported by the CSC or others) that may arise. For the former, pretty much any functionaries coached by their lawyer and accountanct can suffice. For the latter, PTI is a small operational company and the skills to fix such problems are well understood in business. The Board should not be political appointments, but functional, practical ones. Alan At 26/05/2015 12:40 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: >+1 from me, too, Donna. We are at risk duplicating effort and >responsibility which will undermine the other mechanisms "We have >developed ...to provide for regular monitoring and review, with >escalation to deal with non-performance or systemic problems." > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin >Sent: 25 May 2015 20:29 >To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition > >All > >Has it been decided what the PTI Board would do? > >It seems we should decide on this before we get into composition. >The RySG comments have a strong preference for the PTI to be the >IANA Dept. as we know it, so business as usual without any undue >interference and without the possibility of causing uncertainty for >current IANA staff. IANA services are currently satisfactory and we >don't want to jeopardise that post transition. > >We have developed other mechanisms to provide for regular monitoring >and review, with escalation to deal with non-performance or systemic >problems. I don't understand why we need an added, unnecessary in my >view, layer of bureaucracy to the PTI Board. > >Donna > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM >To: Alan Greenberg; avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition > >Alan, > >Assuming a PTI Board of 5 or larger, two registry related Directors >would not be in a preferential position in terms of majority. In my >opinion, having a couple Directors who understand the functioning of >the IFO in meeting TLD registry needs would increase the chances >that the Board would " have the requisite skills and knowledge to do >that quickly and effectively". > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM >To: Gomes, Chuck; avri(a)acm.org; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition > >Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI Board >should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the PTI >Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other >stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board). > >In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively little to >do in a steady-state situation where everything is working well. >However, if things are NOT going well, it is the PTI Board that >would need to be the first line of recourse in fixing it, and it >must have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly and >effectively. > >Alan > >At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >Avri, > > > >It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup is the right > >fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of them. > > > >I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of like the idea > >of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the ccNSO and GNSO > >serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN membership structure, the ccNSO or > >GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they were not > >accountability. > > > >Chuck > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM > >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition > > > >Hi, > > > >I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the > >PTI Board. > > > >Specifically > > > >On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote: > > > * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of > > > having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should > > have a majority > > > of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 > > > ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom. > > > >Personally, I propose: > > > >1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN > >Board > >1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or > >Executive Director or their designee > >3 Nomcom Selections > >various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community > >discussions > > > >This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, > >but would be large enough for some degree of diversity. > > > >While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given > >that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN > >staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of > >ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization. > > > >It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more > >appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis > >to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well > >established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, > >including considerations such as operational experience, financial > >skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone > >operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or > >system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be > >community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom > >according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of > >considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in > >consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community > >and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future > >practices. > > > >In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain > >decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most > >appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid > >having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it > >under the community's control. > > > > > >thanks > >avri > > > >--- > >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >http://www.avast.com > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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

Fate of the .INT domain
by Milton L Mueller May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else’s hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team Chuck, I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC: • 2 x gTLD registry operators • 2 x ccTLD registry operators • 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.) I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO. Greg On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Christopher, I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues: With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition. The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some. In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC. I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int) Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community. Regards CW Begin forwarded message: From: CW Lists <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Jonathan, Lise: Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail. Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community’s Use of the IANA - and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them. Regards CW Begin forwarded message: From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team Date: 13 May 2015 19:05:12 GMT+02:00 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "dt3(a)icann.org<mailto:dt3@icann.org>" <dt3(a)icann.org<mailto:dt3@icann.org>> All As noted on Tuesday’s call, DT-C had a call to address DT-C items on Sidley’s punch list. Attached are our comments. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Donna [cid:image001.png@01D08EC8.BE4A05F0] DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655<tel:310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

11 30