- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Potential issues in Naming Function Agreement
by Paul M Kane Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

I was given an action item the call before last to review the proposed Naming Agreement. As mentioned during the call I would need the assistance of the ccTLD community as I was not up to speed on the work of the Framework of Interpretation. I am advised that the headline concern is the need for PTI to be a service provider accepting instructions from the ccTLD Registry community and not a point of Registry control. Registry Policy occurs in other forums, founded on applicable law, culture and operating environment of the existing ccTLD Registry Manager. Becky Burr has been through the Naming Function Agreement, and (with a lot of help from Stephen Deerhake) identified the following issues: *Section 1.1(oo).* In the definition of Significantly Interested Parties, the phrase these parties include, without limitation should be modified to read these parties include, but are not limited to in order to be consistent with the phrasing used in the final FOI report.s *Section 4.2* requires the Contractor to perform the IANA Naming Function in the US and to demonstrate that all primary operations and systems will remain within the US. Is additional flexibility needed for remote personnel with operational responsibilities outside the US? *Section 4.5* has an internal reference to Section 12.3, but that section has been deleted. *Section 4.7*. For the avoidance of doubt, we propose two modest changes: 1. The reference to the FOI should read: RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ (RFC 1591) as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to 7 the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 (FOI). Any subsequent references should read RFC 1591 as interpreted by the FOI. 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles). Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles. *Section 4.10(a).* Is the prohibition on publication of posting of reports and other deliverables practical? As a minimum, PTI should be permitted to post ordinary, scheduled reports in pre-approved formats without ICANN review. *Section 5.3(a)* prohibits the Contractor from modifying the zone file or associated information without written authorization from ICANN. While that may make sense for some things (adding/deleting gTLDs, e.g.,) it can be - and in the past has been - interpreted to prevent routine changes such as the addition of a new name server by an existing TLD operator. This would obviously be very problematic *Section 6.1(c)* permits the PTI to redact Board minutes containing material that is subject to a legal obligation that the Contractor maintains its confidentiality. There have been recent examples where these kind of confidentiality provisions in ICANNs contracts with its vendors and consultant prevented community access to information about consultant payments, etc. Is there a way to minimize these kind of redactions? *Section 7.1* refers to delegation, redelegation, and transfer of a TLD. The term redelegation should not be used in the context of ccTLDs. Under the FOI, the terms Delegation, Revocation, and Transfer are defined and used to refer to changes of this sort. *Section 7.3(c)* refers to SCWG, which is not defined. *Section 8.1* has an internal reference to Section 8.2(a), which does not exist. * * *Section 9.4* contains an internal reference to Section 14.16, which does not exist. *Section 10.1(c)* appears to introduce the concept of user fees for IANA Naming Function Services. How would this work, and are there adequate constraints on ICANNs ability to approve and PTIs ability to impose such fees? *Section 12.1* Confidentiality. This provision is extremely broad, covering everything ICANN gives Contractor and all data acquired or developed by Contractor in performing the agreement. Why is this necessary and how can that be reconciled with ICANNs obligations relating to transparency. For example, it is not even clear that members of the PTI Board, members of the IFR teams, etc. will have access to PTI information. In addition, the current draft deletes the previous Section 12.3 (Request for Information). Best Paul ** <http://www.neustar.biz>

3 2

Revised PTI Budget Process Compliance Matrix
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

After the CWG meeting last week Xavier made some very helpful comments about the proposed DT-O assessment for requirements 1 & 2 in the PTI Budget Process compliance matrix that was distributed shortly before that meeting. As a result, I am attaching a revised version that redlines some edits to the DT-O assessment for requirements 1 & 2; note that the edits are the same for both requirements. I plan to discuss this revised matrix in this week's CWG call and answer any questions anyone has. Staff - Please have this document available for posting in Adobe when we get to the applicable agenda item. Also, please have the three power point slides that picture the proposed PTI Operational Plan & Budget Development Process ready for posting; I attached that file to make it easy: FY18 PTI Planning Calendar - Draft 160810.pdf. I plan to go over the Planning Calendar first. Note that we dealt with the associated Bylaws amendments in our call last week. Chuck

1 0

Please to advise the Transition gets green light from NTIA ......
by Paul M Kane Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/letter-icann-ceo-marby-rega… https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/update-iana-transition Best Paul

1 0

Agenda for CWG Meeting (18 August @ 06:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Below, please find the agenda for CWG call on 18 August at 06:00 UTC. 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update * NTIA implementation report 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * PTI Bylaws * Naming Functions Agreement * Services Agreement * IANA IPR * IANA Budget process and assessment 4. Client Committee 5. AOB Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> yuko.green(a)icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org

1 0

[Blog] Implementation Planning, Execution, and NTIA’s Response
by Yuko Green Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/implementation-planning-execution-and-ntia-s -response Implementation Planning, Execution, and NTIA's Response In order to fulfill the tasks assigned <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio n-key-internet-domain-name-functions> by NTIA and the <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-10-en> community-developed proposals for the IANA stewardship transition, ICANN and the multistakeholder community have dedicated significant time and resources over the past eight months developing plans for implementation. The ICANN community and staff continue to work hard to ensure that all necessary tasks are completed and the proposals can be implemented in a timely manner in advance of 30 September 2016 to allow the IANA functions contract to expire. On 9 June 2016, <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker- 09jun16-en.pdf> NTIA requested that ICANN submit an implementation planning status report by 12 August 2016. Last Friday, ICANN <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-strickling-12 aug16-en.pdf> submitted a <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-implementation -planning-status-12aug16-en.pdf> report to NTIA that stated: "All required tasks specified in NTIA's 9 June 2016 letter are complete, and all other tasks in support of the transition are either in a final review stage or awaiting approval, which will be complete in advance of 30 September 2016 to allow the IANA functions contract to expire." In a <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160816marby.pdf> letter to ICANN today, NTIA stated, "NTIA has thoroughly reviewed the report. Based on that review, barring any significant impediment, NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract to expire as of October 1." ICANN is pleased with NTIA's statement and is focused on the remaining tasks to be completed by 30 September 2016: * Finalize the <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en> PTI Bylaws: ICANN is currently incorporating comments received during the public comment process that ran from 12 July-11 August and will post a final version on 18 August. * Finalize the <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iana-naming-function-agreement-2016-0 8-10-en> ICANN-PTI Naming Function Agreement, which includes the customer service complaint and escalation mechanisms defined by the CWG-Stewardship: This Agreement is currently out for public comment until 9 September 2016, and a final version will be posted on 16 September 2016. * Finalize the <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-August/005522.html> ICANN-PTI Services Agreement: The Agreement is currently being reviewed and discussed with the multistakeholder community, and a final version will be posted on 16 September 2016. In addition, there are four agreements and documents that have been finalized and require signatures, or ICANN Board and/or PTI Board approval before they can be considered complete: * The Root Zone Maintainer Agreement. * The ICANN-PTI Protocol Parameters Subcontracting Agreement. * The ICANN-PTI Numbers Subcontracting Agreement. * The PTI Conflict of Interest Policy, Board Code of Conduct, and Expected Standards of Behavior. I encourage anyone who is interested in the details of both the completed and ongoing implementation tasks to read ICANN's 31-page <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-implementation -planning-status-12aug16-en.pdf> implementation planning status report. ICANN is confident that everything will be implemented in advance of 30 September 2016 to allow the IANA functions contract to expire. The global multistakeholder community, with the support of ICANN the organization, is ready for the IANA stewardship transition to occur. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> yuko.green(a)icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 14, 2016

Aug. 14, 2016

Dear All, I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”* What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf. However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,, That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened That is all REGARDS Kavouss 2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Go ahead with that 20 supporte > Regards > KAVOUSS > > 2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: > >> 20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >> s(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM >> *To:* Greg Shatan >> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN >> as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community >> >> >> >> I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the >> reality. >> >> 20 people shall not represent the entire community >> >> You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position >> >> WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE. >> >> Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE >> AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG >> >> we need to have at least 60 participants >> >> I am not going to get in another battle with any one >> >> We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue >> >> regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we >> can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed >> signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated. >> >> >> >> As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are >> set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now >> sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so >> the documents can be finalized and distributed. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> >> wrote: >> >> Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires >> a note that this was at the request of the CWG. >> >> A >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> > Grec >> > This is my suggestion >> > Kavouss >> > *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the >> signatory >> > to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has >> been >> > included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be >> subject >> > to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.* >> > >> > 2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: >> > >> > > All, >> > > >> > > As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the >> > > inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final >> nature of >> > > that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement >> on >> > > behalf of the Names Community. >> > > >> > > This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the >> documents >> > > can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on >> > > today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be >> sent in >> > > reply to this email. >> > > >> > > *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the >> signatory >> > > to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the >> > > request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could >> serve as >> > > the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names >> > > Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or >> another >> > > counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined >> by >> > > CWG-Stewardship.* >> > > >> > > Greg >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.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 >> >> >> > >

3 6

[Announcement] ICANN Submits Implementation Planning Status Report to NTIA
by Yuko Green Aug. 13, 2016

Aug. 13, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-08-12-en ICANN Submits Implementation Planning Status Report to NTIA ICANN today submitted an implementation planning status report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-implementation…> [PDF, 932 KB] to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in response to a request<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-…> [PDF, 339 KB] NTIAmade on 9 June 2016. ICANN and the various stakeholder groups have worked tirelessly to complete the tasks specified byNTIA and the global multistakeholder community. The following implementation tasks are complete: * On May 27, 2016, the ICANN Board approved the revisions to the ICANN Bylaws. * On June 24, 2016, ICANN signed the 2016 Supplemental Agreement with the Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF). * On June 29, 2016, ICANN signed the Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). * On July 5, 2016, ICANN and Verisign successfully completed the 90-day parallel testing period on the Root Zone Management System. * On August 9, 2016, the ICANN Board approved the amendments to the ICANN Articles of Incorporation. * On August 10, 2016, the membership of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was approved. * On August 10, 2016, the Incorporation Documents for the "Post-Transition IANA" organization were filed and received by the California Secretary of State, under the name Public Technical Identifiers (which will be more commonly referred to as PTI). * On August 12, 2016, the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) was formed. Significant progress has been made on the following implementation tasks, which will be complete in advance of September 30, 2016: * On August 18, 2016, the final PTI Bylaws will be published. These will incorporate comments received through the ICANN public comment process, which ran from July 12, 2016 to August 11, 2016. Once published, the PTI Bylaws will be ready for ICANN and PTI Board approval. * On September 16, 2016, the ICANN-PTI Naming Function Agreement will be published. It is undergoing a 30-day ICANN public comment process, which will close on September 9, 2016. The final Agreement will be published on September 16, 2016. Once published, the Agreement will be ready for ICANN and PTI Board approval and signature. * The customer service complaint and escalation mechanisms defined by the domain names community were incorporated into the Naming Function Agreement. * On September 16, 2016, the ICANN-PTI Services Agreement will be published. It is currently being reviewed and discussed with the community. Once published, the Agreement will be ready forICANN and PTI Board approval and signature. * Several agreements and documents are complete and ready for signature or Board approval, which will be complete in advance of September 20, 2016: * On August 2, 2016, the ICANN-PTI Protocol Parameter Subcontracting Agreement was completed and is ready for ICANN and PTI signature. * On August 9, 2016, the ICANN Board approved the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement. ICANN, Verisign, and NTIA will coordinate a date to sign it. * On August 11, 2016, the Service Level Expectations (SLEs) for the domain names community were completed and are ready for incorporation into the final Naming Function Agreement. The Naming Function Agreement requires ICANN and PTI Board approval. * On August 11, 2016 the ICANN-PTI Numbers Subcontracting Agreement was completed and is ready for ICANN and PTI signature. * On August 12, 2016, the PTI governance documents, including the conflict of interest policy, Board code of conduct and expected standards of behavior were completed after an ICANNpublic comment process and are ready for PTI Board adoption. ICANN, working with the multistakeholder community, confirms that all required IANA functions stewardship transition tasks specified in NTIA's June 9, 2016 letter are complete, and all other tasks in support of the IANA stewardship transition are either in a final review stage or awaiting approval, which will be complete in advance of September 30, 2016 to allow the IANA functions contract to expire. Review the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Implementation Planning Status Report for more information: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-implementation… [PDF, 932 KB]. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

[Announcement] ICANN Announces the Formation of the CSC and RZERC
by Yuko Green Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-08-en ICANN Announces the Formation of Two Committees Required for IANA Stewardship Transition ICANN today announced the formation of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and the Root ZoneEvolution Review Committee (RZERC). Both newly formed committees are requirements for the completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition by the CWG-Stewardship. The CSC will perform the operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by NTIA. In its oversight role, the CSC will monitor the performance of the IANAnaming function against agreed service level expectations. The CSC may also initiate reviews and make recommendations for post-transition changes to service level expectations. For more information, please see the CSC Charter<https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/41-csc-charter-v-v1> [PDF, 139 KB] or the CSC Scope and Responsibilities<https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/43-csc-scope-and-responsibilities-v-v2> [PDF, 82.3 KB]. Per the CSC Charter, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Councils have approved the full slate of the membership<https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship-implementation/customer-standing-commi…>. The RZERC will review proposed architectural changes to the content of the root zone, the systems (including both hardware and software components) used in executing changes to the root zone and the mechanisms used for distribution of the root zone. It will also make recommendations related to those changes for consideration by the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board's approval of recommendations developed through the RZERC will replace NTIA's current role in approval of architectural changes to the root zone. The ICANN Board adopted the RZERC Charter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-rzerc-charter-08aug16-e…> [PDF, 50 KB], finalized through public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-rzerc-charter-2016-06-10-en>, on 10 August 2016. See the full committee here<https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship-implementation/formation-of-a-root-zon…>. These committees will not become operational unless and until the expiration of the IANA Functions Contract. Additional details on ICANN's implementation planning efforts can be found at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Staff analysis for PTI Governance Documents' public comment
by Yuko Green Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has published the staff analysis report for the public comments received for the PTI Governance documents: - PTI Expected Standards of Behavior - PTI Board Code of Conduct - PTI Conflict of Interest Policy The staff report, as well as the updated documents based on the submitted comments are available at the section IV and V of the public comment page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
by Greg Shatan Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

All, As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email. *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.* Greg

10 16