- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Closed at 45 Submissions!
by Grace Abuhamad May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Hi Jorge and all, Yes, 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 ³download all² button at the bottom left side of the macro. Best, Grace From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 3:09 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: AW: Public Comment Closed at 45 Submissions! Dear Grace Could you perhaps prepare a zip file with al submissions and upload it on the wiki? Thanks Jorge Cancio Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Abuhamad Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2015 02:33 An: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Closed at 45 Submissions! Dear all, For those of you who have placed bets on how many submissions we would receive for this 2nd public comment, the numbers are in: 45 submissions received! Staff has already started to incorporate the comments into the review tool and expect to deliver an initial overview (with suggested actions) on Friday. In the meantime, you can read through the submissions here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 /index.html. I have also received the translations of the CWG-Stewardship proposal and am uploading them to the website with a new announcement on the public comment page regarding the extension. ICANN will circulate notices regarding the extension to as broad a community as possible and we will forward these to the CWG-Stewardship as well. In the meantime, the translations are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw. As Olivier noted a special importance with regard to translations and ALAC, I¹ve included the ALAC staff team in copy. Best regards, Grace

2 1

Public Comment Closed at 45 Submissions!
by Grace Abuhamad May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Dear all, For those of you who have placed bets on how many submissions we would receive for this 2nd public comment, the numbers are in: 45 submissions received! Staff has already started to incorporate the comments into the review tool and expect to deliver an initial overview (with suggested actions) on Friday. In the meantime, you can read through the submissions here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 /index.html. I have also received the translations of the CWG-Stewardship proposal and am uploading them to the website with a new announcement on the public comment page regarding the extension. ICANN will circulate notices regarding the extension to as broad a community as possible and we will forward these to the CWG-Stewardship as well. In the meantime, the translations are available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw. As Olivier noted a special importance with regard to translations and ALAC, I¹ve included the ALAC staff team in copy. Best regards, Grace

4 3

Translations to circulate broadly: CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal
by Grace Abuhamad May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Please circulate the following extension notices broadly. Where you can find the translations: * The translated documents are currently posted on the CWG-Stewardship wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw * The documents and a notice are posted on the public comment page here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04 -22-en * I’ve attached PDFs to this email. Extension Notices: AR: EN: Due to the late availability of the translated versions of the proposal, those who are reliant on these translated versions to provide input will have the ability to submit their comments until 26 May at 23:59 UTC. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requires a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on the translated versions. For any other submissions the existing deadline of 20 May at 23:59 UTC applies. For any questions, please email grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> . ES: Debido a la demora en la disponibilidad de las traducciones de la propuesta, quienes necesiten recurrir a las traducciones para presentar sus comentarios tienen tiempo hasta el 26 de mayo a las 23:59 UTC. En estos casos, el CWG sobre la Transición requiere la presentación de una nota aclaratoria, en la cual se explique que fue necesario recurrir a las traducciones para presentar los comentarios correspondientes. El plazo de presentación de todos los demás comentarios continua siendo el 20 de mayo a las 23:59 UTC. Ante cualquier consulta, se solicita enviar un correo electrónico a grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> . FR: En raison de la mise à disposition tardive des versions traduites de la proposition, le délai pour la présentation de commentaires pour ceux qui dépendent de ces versions traduites est prolongé jusqu'au 26 mai à 23h59 UTC. Le CWG-Transition demande à ce que ces contributions soient accompagnées d'une note explicative précisant que les commentaires dépendaient de la disponibilité des versions traduites de la proposition. Pour toutes les autres contributions, l'échéance du 20 mai à 23h59 UTC reste toujours valable. Pour toute question, merci d'envoyer un mél à grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> . RU: Из-за позднего завершения перевода предложений, сторонам, нуждающимся для составления отзывов в переводе, предоставляется возможность направить из до 23:59 26 мая (время универсальное координированное). В этих случаях группе CWG-Координирующая роль будет необходимо направить объяснительную записку и в ней указать, что для составления комментариев был необходим перевод. Во всех остальных случаях срок подачи комментариев сохраняется -- 23:59 20 мая (время универсальное координированное). С вопросами просим обращаться по адресу grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org ZH: 鉴于本提案的译文版本发布较晚，则需要阅读译文才可提交意见的社群的评论截止时间为世界协调时 5 月 26 日 23:59 时。“CWG——管理权”要求提交这类评论的社群需要附上一份解释文件，表明本评论根据译文版而提出。其他评论的提交截止时间仍旧为世界协调时 5 月 20 日 23:59 时。如有其他疑问，请发送电子邮件至：grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> 。 Thank you, Grace

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
by Seun Ojedeji May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

This could be an interesting discussion/insight for the consumption of the CWG. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter(a)gmail.com> Date: 20 May 2015 01:17 Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> Cc: "ianaplan(a)ietf.org" <ianaplan(a)ietf.org>, "Olaf Kolkman" < kolkman(a)isoc.org> On 20/05/2015 03:18, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > <snip> > > > However, no matter where the names community locates itself on that > spectrum, PTI is still "meaningfully" separated from ICANN. The assets and > staff and operations management of PTI would have been moved out of ICANN > corporate, 94% of which is names policy related, and into a separately run > entity. The work flow process, as John Curran noted yesterday, would become > explicit and that would be a meaningful change in terms of separating > policy from implementation. By creating a separate affiliate, a contract > and creating a periodic review process which has rebidding the contract > possible, we also make it more feasible to fire PTI and use a different > IANA functions provider. > > I've been mulling over the implications of this. Either PTI will be > controlled by ICANN or it won't. If it *is* effectively controlled > by ICANN, the IETF can sit back and relax until our SLA is no longer > met, in which case we go to Plan B (i.e. no change in the state that > has existed for 15 years). > > If PTI is *not* effectively controlled by ICANN, we are straight > into Plan B: giving notice to ICANN and bidding out a protocol > parameter services contract, with PTI as an obvious bidder, > hopefully at zero cost. (I would seriously expect several zero- > cost bids to show up.) > > What does 'effectively controlled' mean? I think it's an empirical > question. As a counter-example, Ports of Auckland is wholly owned > by Auckland Council Investments Limited, itself owned by the > Auckland Council. But Ports of Auckland prefers to ignore > the wishes of the community* that elected Auckland Council when > it suits their commercial interests. This is a direct result of > the transition from the port being in public ownership to being > semi-privatized. > > Brian > > * if you're interested: > > http://pilot.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67454039/famous-aucklanders-pr… > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan(a)ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >

1 0

Forward Planning Draft
by Grace Abuhamad May 20, 2015

May 20, 2015

Dear all, Under agenda item 6 today, we will discuss the attached forward planning draft. If you have time before the meeting, please take a look at the document. Best, Grace

5 9

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 19 May
by Brenda Brewer May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting on 19 May are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895707> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895707 Kind regards, Brenda Feedback from Staffan (per email): In order to speed things up I'm happy to give my input on the Punch list items, since it (hopefully) is uncontroversial *1. Walk through input (Punchlist) from DT C* Punchlist from DTC: I'm also engaged in DT-C and is happy with comments submitted by Chuck (From Donna and DT C) In punch-list 11-16: CSC design: we committed in DT C not to over-regulate the CSC. Discussion revolved around giving the CSC the discretion to handle e.g. punch list item no 15: To agree inbetween CSC and PTI how procedures or remedial actions will be developed post transition (and not before transition) In punch list item 16: It is noted that CSC can escalate complaints to ccNSO and GNSO, which may then decide to take further action "using agreed consultation and escalation processes." DT C response: For ccNSO and GNSO respectively, it is up to their own discretion to formulate internal processes/procedures for escalation. DT C response indicate that such internal processes can be developed post transition (i.e.) not urgent, and that own initiatives for alternative routes to remedies may appear (e.g. direct contact with ICANN board). Sidley punchlist item no 21 relate to what happens if ccNSO/GNSO decide to escalate unresolved issues. To What function/organization would that escalation happen? DT C answer here is that it is dependent on escalation procedures developed in ccNSO/GNSO, which is post transition). This item has been hanging lossely in process for some while now. My personal view is that the DT C answer is good enough. What about You? Are there issues or concern re. item 21 in the punch list, or proposed answer to it? In punch list item 22: DT C also relates to process that can be developed post transition. Any concern for this? I'm happy with the proposed solution. As noted in the CSC answer and also noted by Paul Kane in the list, there are demands from several actors in cc community that escalation also need to be specified with consice timeframes for remedials. This specification of service expectations go further than the two dys mentioned by Marika in the list. Punch list item 23: Maybe this one need some discussion during next meting Monday? *2. Walk through of escalation flow charts* Escalation flow charts sent by Marika are a key improvement for understanding the processes (such charts have already been demanded by cc community members). Notes 19/5 * See also comments circulated by Staffan on 13/5 * No disagreement in relation to item 11 * No disagreement in relation to item 12 * No disagreement in relation to item 13 * In relation to comment 14, in selecting liaisons, ccNSO/GNSO may want to factor in technical expertise. Separation CWG (SCWG) would also include a CSC liaison (new item 14a?) who would in addition to technical skills should also have RFP expertise. * Item 15 - second sentence could say PTI 'staff" with the qualifier that it should be with the director / leadership of PTI or their designee.. * Item 16 - should leadership of ccNSO and GNSO be engaged on this topic to give them a heads-up that additional work may be required (ideally before finalisation of proposal)? * Item 21 - in the case of the GNSO, individual registry operators that are impacted by a delegation / redelegation decision should be individually able to start an IRP in the view of the RySG. Should this also be an option for the GNSO and/or the RySG? It may not be practical for the GNSO / RySG to do so? Other option would be to call for an IANA Function Review. IRP only works if there has been a decision, if there is another issue, an IRP would not apply. According to DT M, there could possibly be three avenues for IRP usage: individual TLDs, GNSO/ccNSO, RySG (in cases of systemic issues, not individual registry cases). Unresolved issues, if it is decided that they need to be escalated, these could be escalated to the IFRT. Would a direct dialogue with the IFO also be an option? First step could be for ccNSO/GNSO to request IFO to provide explanation as well as agrieved party (if further information would be needed) so that information from all affected parties is available before next steps are decided upon (mediation?). Staffan to check as DT C may have something similar in its documentation. If the issue is not resolved, and it is agreed that escalation is needed, IFRT would be invoked. Escalation does not necessarily require an issue that is relevant / of impact to both SOs, but for escalation of performancie issue / systematic problem to IFRT support from both SOs is needed. In summary, step 1) issue could be raised to one of the SOs who could do fact finding and try to mitigate, 2) could also recommend an IRP, 3) both SOs agree on escalation on IFR, * Item 22 - consider going with DT C recommendation (leave it up to CSC) * Item 23 - not DT M role to design mediation, but is this something that staff could assist with (not necessary for final recommendations, but could recommend that work needs to be commenced on mediation services and explore / decide what the options are). Registry agreements could be a possible model (Marika to check what experience exists with regards to mediation services). Escalation flow charts * Add on page 1, add to 'decision to escalate to phase 2' that it is only accessible for direct customers * If complainant does not decide to escalate to phase 2, the process ends. Does not preclude individual registry operator to initiate IRP or other avenues available (include footnote similar as in the document) * Both parties must have the ability to escalate. Consider adding a footnote that also notes that IFO and ombudsman could also escalate. * What happens if issue is not resolved and it is not a direct customer? Indirect customer always has the ombudsman as a vehicle as well as through liaisons in CSC. * Update on phase 2 that IFO and Ombudsman could also initiate phase 2. * Move decision box down underneath CSC and clarify there that it can be escalated to phase 2 by IFO, complainant or ombudsman. * DT/CWG to consider where to include the flow charts. * Page 2 - Update title, update first box to read complainant / IFO / Ombudsman, add to 'baseball home plate' see next page. * Page 3 - add decision box for 'if satisfactory' and 'if unsatisfactory'

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #48 - 19 May
by Brenda Brewer May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #48 - 19 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53774443 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: discuss Sidley memo - Term Sheet at the meeting on Tuesday Notes Eduardo Diaz on audio only 1. Opening Remarks 2. Public comment a. FAQ update * FAQs to be included as part of final proposal * Request for volunteers to assist with the work of FAQ drafting? None. b. Translations * The CWG-Stewardship could allow an extension until 26 May at 23:59 UTC for those dependent on translations. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requests a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on translated versions. * There should be no implication on the overall timeline since we do not anticipate that many comments are dependent on translations (only 1 submission during the first public comment was) c. Update on comments received * 11 submissions received to date * View them here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1…> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1… 3. Punch List Review * Item 1: outstanding action item to receive feedback from ICANN Finance and Legal. Delaware LLC is proposed because it is more flexible of a structure (in the case that PTI would be designed like a PBC while maintaining LLC legal structure). * Items 2-3: dependent on information from ICANN * Item 4: CWG to move forward with insider board but need to think further about specifics as to which offices to require as part of board composition (require PTI Executive Director, for example). * Item 5: scope and responsibilities for the PTI need to be further outlined * Items 6-10: under discussion in DT-N * Items 11-16: recommendations to be discussed with full CWG. * Items 17-20: Sidley term sheet to be discussed under AOB and DT-A has a meeting on Friday 22 May to address item #20 * Items 21-23: DT-M is meeting to discuss these items after the CWG call today * Items 24-29: under discussion in DT-N * Items 30-32: DT-F met prior to CWG meeting and the outcome of their discussions has not been included in the 'punch list' on screen * Items 33-36: awaiting feedback from CCWG-Accountability 4. Design Team Updates a. DT-SR/DT-N * SCWG is a separate group from the IFRT but with similar composition. * Google doc: < <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> * DT-SR/DT-N Punch List items: < <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxA…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxA…> * Work is expected to be finalized by next Tuesday's call b. DT-F * Will have something by next week that can be included in proposal * Not fully fleshed out, but enough to be included 5. Forward planning Need to include SLE work as part of development of final draft 6. AOB a. No call on Thursday b. Sidley memo - Term Sheet Action: discuss Sidley memo - Term Sheet at the meeting on Tuesday 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

snapshot of DTNN/SR punch list
by avri Doria May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Hi, avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-F Meeting 19 May
by Brenda Brewer May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-F Meeting on 19 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53775020 Action Items ACTION Alan: reach out to chairs of organizations to be included with Representative or chairs ( SSAC, RSSAC and IETF) if comfortable the proposed direction of travel, after completion and discussion next write up ACTION Alan: Provide next draft, will include high level overview, and indication of direction of travel post adoption of proposal and before transition is completed Notes DT-F Meeting 19 May 2015, noon UTC Agenda: Discussion draft proposal circulated by Alan on list Summary to date Draft Proposal to replace NTIA Administrative Oversight Currently the NTIA is involved in virtually all changes to the architecture and implementation of the Root Zone (excluding those solely within individual Root Servers?) and all operational and procedural changes within IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer. DT-F has recommended that such oversight is no longer required for day-to-day changes, but that oversight is still required for substantive changes. Oversight needed, not so much for transaction, but for operational and procedural changes. Question: why not the ICANN Board? Suggestion new Board committee Not in document: what is not , and what is substantive Chuck: What is substantive difficult to define, future can not be predicted. Example major automation push. When items are defined. Example to be included (substantive examples in text box) If in doubt go to the committee. Is Board Committee appropriate term (semantics)? Rename to Advisory Council? Come up with title that captures. Do we need involvement by ASO/RIRs? To be included Examples of decisions: not a real committee, looking into topic, which involves a lot of people, over long period of time. Changes done through: board community involvement, and at the end decision by Board. Always special Committee, is not place where decision is made, or technical discussions are made, but superstructure, under which decision and proposal are made. Question: Board taking final decision? Yes Warn against creating another structure for one of decision Issues: process to get decision to the Board. Try to put into document: Committee is conveyor, and rule is other experts need to be involved. Would be good, to reach out to the chairs, who are supposed to have a seat on the committee, to give feed-back ( to check if any issues from their end) Action Alan: reach out to chairs of organizations to be included with Representative or chairs ( SSAC, RSSAC and IETF) if comfortable the proposed direction of travel, after completion and discussion next write up Question: initiation of process (avoid spurious requests). Include gating factor to get going. Participants in the group need to be interested. Question: would this be a standing committee ( only meets when needed). Need for committee to meet in case major changes through IFR or PTI.? Committee may never meet, but initiate process/discussion. Who is going to name TLD reps?

1 0

Update "Punch list" 6 May 2015
by Bart Boswinkel May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Dear all, Please find included an update of the Sydley "Punch list" It includes draft recommendations, in those cases where a DT has concluded its work. If work is still ongoing it is recorded int the status column In case the CWG itself has discussed an item, the core of the discussion is captured as well, and need for ongoing work in the status column. Kind regards, Bart

1 0