- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team
by Donna Austin May 14, 2015

May 14, 2015

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 DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 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.

5 6

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #47 - 14 May
by Brenda Brewer May 14, 2015

May 14, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #47 - 14 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773685 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action item (staff): Update public comment review tool, including comments received to date as well as draft responses to be shared with the CWG by next meeting Action item (all): Continue to review FAQ and consider publishing as part of final proposal (supporting documents) Action item (staff): Post FAQ on wiki page so it allows for comments / editing Action item (all): Review latest version of the document (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…) and provide input Action item: need clear definition of terminology, for example 'separation' Action item: Continue conversations via mailing list - note updates made by DT C. Action item: documents to be shared on the list for further review and discussion during next week's meeting. Action item: Add DT F to the agenda for Tuesday Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Continued co-ordination with CRISP team - call between chairs earlier this week. 2. Public comment Action item (staff): Update public comment review tool, including comments received to date as well as draft responses to be shared with the CWG by next meeting FAQ - update * Proposal to hold off publishing FAQ as it needs further polishing and consider publishing after public comment forum closes, if still deemed helpful. It could accompany the final proposal for example. Action item (all): Continue to review FAQ and consider publishing as part of final proposal (supporting documents) Action item (staff): Post FAQ on wiki page so it allows for comments / editing * Any other points? 3. Update from Sidley * See Post-Transition IANA Board Stress Tests memo circulated by Sidley - insider board (made up of a majority of directors that are employed by ICANN) vs. outsider board (majority of directors not employed by ICANN). Outsider board could create more issues than it would solve for, based on Sidley's analysis. PTI board would have fudiciary duties to PTI so would be required to act in the best interest of PTI. Insider board could also have directors not employed by ICANN - influence could be introduced that way should it be deemed appropriate in the future? Direction could also be given to ICANN as to how board should be filled with regards to ICANN appointed memos. Are there any objections to focusing on internal board and develop further clarifying questions that may need to be addressed? PTI would be governed by contract - shouldn't be able to go against those agreements. * * See PTI Entity Structure memo (LLC or nonprofit public benefit corporation). LLC would allow for more flexibility, mainly governed by a contract. Tax favors LLC, bankruptcy favors non-profit status. Non-profit status could have advantage of directing PTI Insider Board concerning its fiduciary obligations to PTI. Consider obtaining ICANN input on tax exempt status and how PTI finances would look. Some questions may need to be asked, but there appear to be advantages of the non-profit public benefit corporation status over an LLC, taking into account the direction towards an insider board. If it is a non-profit PTI is not a subsidiary but an affiliate (not owned by ICANN). LLC would make it more internal as a subsidiary. Suggestion to move forward with insider board as a non-profit public benefit corporation. 4. Key design team issues * DT SR - one of the issues that is pending is, if the separation process that is triggered, is it the IFR that carries it out or is it another entity (e.g. CWG) that carries it out. Other issue is the trigger(s) for separation review. IFR could trigger it, but what happens if it is not approved by the Board, would it go through accountability mechanisms. Could it be triggered by supermajority vote of ccNSO/GNSO, or majority vote of RySG and ccNSO? Separation is divestiture (termination of contract / RFP), sale of assests or if ICANN decides for someone else to perform the technical functions. Is that covered in the document? Yes, is considered in the range of possible outcomes of separation review. If team is good, but ICANN oversight not functional, PTI should be divested. If IANA function isn't working, but ICANN oversight is, then ICANN terminates contract and initiates an RFP. Consider scenario mapping. Action item (all): Review latest version of the document (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…) and provide input Action item: need clear definition of terminology, for example 'separation' * Other? 5. Punch List Review Action item: Continue conversations via mailing list - note updates made by DT C. 6. Forward planning - timeline * Overview and next steps * Critical milestones & targets * Towards conclusion of design team work Action item: documents to be shared on the list for further review and discussion during next week's meeting. 7. AOB Action item: Add DT F to the agenda for Tuesday 8. Closing Remarks

1 0

Fwd: [client com] Memos on PTI Entity Structure and PTI Board "Stress Tests"
by Grace Abuhamad May 14, 2015

May 14, 2015

Forwarding this email on Sharon's behalf. Begin forwarded message: From: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>> Date: May 13, 2015 at 22:27:11 EDT To: " (cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>)" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "Client Committee" <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] Memos on PTI Entity Structure and PTI Board "Stress Tests" Dear all, Attached please find memos on the PTI entity structure and the PTI board "stress tests." Best regards, Holly, Sharon and Josh **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

CWG - Draft FAQ
by Bernard Turcotte May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

All, Per the co-chair's request staff have prepared an FAQ based on the questions and answers from the 4 recent webinars as well as the Sidley points which were published at the end of last week. This FAQ is not a list of all questions that were asked in the Webinars, given some were either duplicates of previous questions or less relevant to the current proposal - all in an effort to keep the document to a manageable size and provide maximum value for the readers. As to the answers they were edited to normalize language and merge all the relevant responses. This document is a CWG draft document and the co-chairs would appreciate feedback on any significant issues ASAP so this can be published to assist those who are considering or preparing a response to the CWG public consultation. B.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - CWG-Stewardship Meeting 14 May 2015
by Marika Konings May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next CWG-Stewardship meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 14 May at 11.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda 1. Opening Remarks 2. Public comment * FAQ - update * Any other points? 3. Update from Sidley 4. Key design team issues * DT SR * Other? 5. Punch List Review 6. Forward planning - timeline * Overview and next steps * Critical milestones & targets * Towards conclusion of design team work 7. AOB 8. Closing Remarks

1 0

For CWG: Witness List for Wednesday's Congressional Hearing on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

Witnesses: Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice Danielle Kehl Senior Policy Analyst New America’s Open Technology Institute Audrey Plonk Director Global Cybersecurity and Internet Governance Policy Intel Corporation Matthew Shears Representative and Director Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Project Center for Democracy and Technology Brett Schaefer Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs The Heritage Foundation See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/stakeholder-perspectives-iana-trans…

2 1

Live Stream Link to Congressional Hearing Starting NOW
by Greg Shatan May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/live-video-feed

1 0

FW: FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int
by Grace Abuhamad May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill. On 5/13/15, 3:24 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Grace: please forward to CWG-Stewardship, since I cannot post to that list >directly. >========================================================================== >== >======== > >Dear David, > >Thank you for the thoughtful comments and please see my embedded comments >below. > >Best, >Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 23:47 >> To: Richard Hill >> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on >> .int >> >> [Sorry for the slow response -- bit buried right now] >> >> Richard, >> >>My understanding is that while >> ICANN was indeed involved in the workshop that preceded the E.int work >> within the ITU, ICANN was not actually involved in the E.int work that >> led >> to E.910 itself (I know I wasn't). Is this incorrect? > >I seem to recall that an ICANN staff member participated in at least one >of >the meeting of the editor's group, but I may be wrong about that. ICANN >staff did for sure send comments on early drafts and those comments were >incorporated in the final version. > >> >> Also, since I wasn't involved in the E.int work, I'm unaware of how >> much >> input or involvement the international treaty organizations currently >> registered in .INT (other than the ITU obviously) had in the >> formulation >> of the requirements documented in E.910. > >Both the workshop and the editor's group were open and several >organizations >provided input. Prior to the formal ITU approval process, the draft was >circulated to all UN agencies. The draft was formally approved by the >highest UN executive body that is competent to consider the matters, >namely >the chief executive officers of the various UN agencies. > >The ITU approval process that was used is the so-called Traditional >Approval >Process, in which Member States are notified of the intended approval and >have 8-9 months in which to express objections. The recommendation is >approved only if there are no objections. That was the case for E.910. > >So it was formally approved both by the heads of the UN agencies, and by >the >UN Member States (who are all members of ITU). > >>My reading of E.910 suggests a >> level of top-down presumption that, notwithstanding the historical >> documents you reference, does not necessary correspond to the bottom-up >> methodologies now used in the definition of TLD registry policies. > >Depends what you mean by bottom-up. The process strove to get inputs from >all the entities that are, or thought they should be, eligible for a >domain >name under ".int". > >>For >> example, of the 180+ current treaty based organizations registered in >> .INT, how many were actually substantively involved in the development >> of >> E.910? > >See above. > >> >> Given how the management of the namespace has evolved in the nearly a >> decade since E.910 was published by the ITU, and in particular, how TLD >> registry policies are now generally developed via multi-stakeholder >> processes in a bottom-up fashion, I'm still unsure whether it makes a >> whole lot of sense to make a change without engaging the directly >> impacted >> parties. > >In my view, the directly impacted parties were engaged back in 2004. >Whether E.910 still corresponds to what they want is of course an open >question, but my hunch is that it does, because the main purposes of E.910 >were to clarify the following: > >1) Organizations can obtain domain names corresponding to their acronym in >the 6 official UN languages, with the caveat that Arabic, Chinese, and >Russian would only be available when technically possible (IDN). > >2) The registry for ".int" could charge for its services. > >3) A new mechanism (different from the current one) was agreed to resolve >the "corner cases", that is, cases when an organization thinks it >qualifies >for a name under ".int", but it is no obvious whether it does or does not. > >Some specific cases of (3) were one of the drivers of the initiative to >develop E.910. > >>Further, while it is true that .INT is an IANA function and, >> as >> such, will be impacted by the transition of the stewardship of that >> function from NTIA, I've not gotten the impression that there is a >> whole >> lot of pressure to change from the current status quo in terms of >> day-to-day operations. Do you see things differently? > >Yes, I think that it is strange that some international organizations >don't >have domain names that correspond to their French and Spanish acronyms. > >Obviously there are other ways to resolve that than to refer to E.910, >but, >as outlined above, the intent of E.910 was to clarify a number of issues >that had arisen in the past. I suspect that those issues are still >relevant. > >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM >> To: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> Cc: Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int >> >> >Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill. >> > >> >On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >> > >> >>Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship. >> >> >> >>I note David Conrad's comment regarding E.910 at: >> >> >> >>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002863.html >> >> >> >>David says: >> >> >> >>"Well, it might have been the aspiration of folks who attended the >> E.int >> >>(later E.910) ITU meetings in Geneva (which did not include ICANN >> staff >> >>to >> >>my knowledge < I was general manager of IANA at that time so I >> probably >> >>would've known)." >> >> >> >>Actually the workshop that kicked off the work was co-hosted by ITU-T >> and >> >>ICANN, see: >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/icann.html >> >> >> >>It was co-chaired by the President and CEO of ICANN and a senior >> official >> >>from WIPO, see: >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/index.html >> >> >> >>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated. ICANN provided >> an >> >>input to the workshop. >> >> >> >>Further discussions were held in an editor's group that was open to >> all, >> >>and >> >>whose outputs were publicly available. See for example: >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0167/en >> >> >> >>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated in at least >> some of >> >>those meetings. >> >> >> >>"That was a long time ago and many things have changed. I personally >> >>don't >> >>think it should have any bearing on how .INT is dealt with >> >>post-transition." >> >> >> >>I doubt that the requirements of "organizations established by >> >>international >> >>treaties" have changed since 2005, so I don't understand why the >> >>requirements formulated by those organizations, and set forth in >> E.910, >> >>should not have any bearing in how .INT is dealt with. >> >> >> >>Anybody who is interested in the history of .int might wish to have a >> >>look >> >>at the documents at: >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/documents/index.html >> >> >> >>and at: >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0168/en >> >> >> >>Best, >> >>Richard >> >> >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int
by David Conrad May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

[Sorry for the slow response -- bit buried right now] Richard, Thanks very much for this, in particular the pointers to the historical documents -- I've looked for those in the past. Fascinating stuff, particularly for folks like myself who find early Internet history interesting. As I joined ICANN (the first time) in Nov 2005, the events you provided pointers to were a bit before my time. My understanding is that while ICANN was indeed involved in the workshop that preceded the E.int work within the ITU, ICANN was not actually involved in the E.int work that led to E.910 itself (I know I wasn't). Is this incorrect? Also, since I wasn't involved in the E.int work, I'm unaware of how much input or involvement the international treaty organizations currently registered in .INT (other than the ITU obviously) had in the formulation of the requirements documented in E.910. My reading of E.910 suggests a level of top-down presumption that, notwithstanding the historical documents you reference, does not necessary correspond to the bottom-up methodologies now used in the definition of TLD registry policies. For example, of the 180+ current treaty based organizations registered in .INT, how many were actually substantively involved in the development of E.910? Given how the management of the namespace has evolved in the nearly a decade since E.910 was published by the ITU, and in particular, how TLD registry policies are now generally developed via multi-stakeholder processes in a bottom-up fashion, I'm still unsure whether it makes a whole lot of sense to make a change without engaging the directly impacted parties. Further, while it is true that .INT is an IANA function and, as such, will be impacted by the transition of the stewardship of that function from NTIA, I've not gotten the impression that there is a whole lot of pressure to change from the current status quo in terms of day-to-day operations. Do you see things differently? Regards, -drc -----Original Message----- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM To: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int >Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill. > >On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: > >>Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship. >> >>I note David Conrad's comment regarding E.910 at: >> >>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002863.html >> >>David says: >> >>"Well, it might have been the aspiration of folks who attended the E.int >>(later E.910) ITU meetings in Geneva (which did not include ICANN staff >>to >>my knowledge < I was general manager of IANA at that time so I probably >>would've known)." >> >>Actually the workshop that kicked off the work was co-hosted by ITU-T and >>ICANN, see: >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/icann.html >> >>It was co-chaired by the President and CEO of ICANN and a senior official >>from WIPO, see: >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/index.html >> >>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated. ICANN provided an >>input to the workshop. >> >>Further discussions were held in an editor's group that was open to all, >>and >>whose outputs were publicly available. See for example: >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0167/en >> >>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated in at least some of >>those meetings. >> >>"That was a long time ago and many things have changed. I personally >>don't >>think it should have any bearing on how .INT is dealt with >>post-transition." >> >>I doubt that the requirements of "organizations established by >>international >>treaties" have changed since 2005, so I don't understand why the >>requirements formulated by those organizations, and set forth in E.910, >>should not have any bearing in how .INT is dealt with. >> >>Anybody who is interested in the history of .int might wish to have a >>look >>at the documents at: >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/documents/index.html >> >>and at: >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0168/en >> >>Best, >>Richard >>

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #46 - 12 May
by Brenda Brewer May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #46 - 12 May are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773683> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773683 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items -ACTION Staff: Update Punch list with results from call -ACTION: Detailed session on fundamental questions to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May. - ACTION co-chair how to handle input from group on initial staff responses - ACTION: Share additions to FAQ (responses on questions Webinar) with group ASAP, goal is to inform Public comment as much as possible - ACTION: Capture points on completeness of proposal to inform community - ACTION: co-chairs work with group, to work on mechanism to allow those groups entities not part of chartering organisations to provide input on final proposal - ACTION: Staff Capture points on completeness on punch list (6 May version) - ACTION: Detailed session on fundamental questions re Separability to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May. - ACTION: Include timetable for discussion in agenda 14 May meeting Notes Notes and Agenda - CWG - Stewardship Meeting - 12 May 2015 1. Opening Remarks No Participants on the audio - Add new item update client committee - Request to extend PC: Given timetable and underlying principle of getting proposal to community by BA. - New timetable under development with Sidley - Intense working days 28 and 29 May 2015 - Recent letter DOC by NTIA to ICG, talking about planning , timing and potential impact on end date of current contract. Intention to have a call Checking action previous calls - Go back to ICANN Finance on costing models. Note written by co-chair - Various Sidley documents, to inform CWG. - Request Sidley to develop first terms sheet for contract PTI to encapsulate SLE Comment/update DT A, will receive current work flow. from ICANN and IANA - Sidley requested to provide stress testing on PTI Board in different configuration and other element - co-chairs reached out to ICANN legal on punch list item 3 and 4 ( completed) 2. Public Comment a. Draft format of review template (attached) Comments on Public comment tool: no comments Start review comments now or after closure PC ? Start with recording the input from PC right now. Given dynamic document who controls it? As it is circulated regularly, staff to maintain document. Need for a reasonable process, to organise comment. Suggestion staff to prepare an initial response, CWG to reject, update, staff response ACTION: co-chair provide method on how to handle input from group on initial staff responses b. FAQ (to follow up on this Action item: develop FAQ to complement information provided in the public comment forum) FAQ are prepared on basis of Sidley Austin document. Intention is to add responses to FAQ, moving forward. Next branch of questions to be included in FAQ is responses to question raised during the webinar. ACTION: Share additions to FAQ (responses from Webinar) with group ASAP, goal is to inform Public comment as much as possible c. Feedback or issues from CWG PK: How to respond to those who feel proposal is not complete? and await responding to full proposal? View of co-chairs is that 2nd proposal is sufficient complete, to provide meaningful comment. Based on response and ongoing work, proposal will be complete by BA meeting for chartering organisations to decide on proposal. Related item: CCWG thinks requirements CWG will be reflected in CCWG proposal. Proposal will only be complete with CCWG Accountability mechanisms in place ACTION: Capture points on completeness of proposal to inform community Comment: How will people not associated with chartering org provide their input during the Action: co-chairs work with group, to work on mechanism to allow those groups entities not part of chartering organisations to provide input on final proposal ACTION: Include timetable in meeting 13 May 3. Punch List Updates Item 1- 5 Sidley Scenario testing related to April 16 memo. What is more resilient model in case of bankruptcy Item 6-10 ( DT N). Is this group meeting? Working through Google docs, inclination is not to have a call ACTION: Ongoing work though shared document Item 11-16 ( DT C): Action DT C :Capture points and share on list to strike items from Punch list as done Item 17-19 Status: dealt be by heads of terms by Sidley. ACTION Client Committee: Update by Thursday through client committee on terms sheet ACTION: DTA to provide feed-back on first terms sheet on SLE Escalation Mechanism (item 21-23) DTM/DT C DT M Meeting on 13 May. DT C made some d=suggestions-> to be shared with DT M If needed co-chair available to assist in DT C /DT M meeting Item 24-29 Punch list (Avri) Responses to punch list started, fundamental questions are still pending, such if IFR is going to recommend, then wh is going to separate? Discussion needed to go through triggers Other items are covered Comment/Question: separability what does it mean: are we talking baout separating the operations or stewardship? Response: separability has NOT to do with stewardship, but with Function Operator. As a result different possibilities. Significant work ongoing: understanding it is a work of the whole group. Fundamental questions to be scheduled at one point. Action: Detailed session on fundamental questions re Separability to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May. 4. Brief update client committee On ongoing forward basis in full of time and resources, especially at end of public comment period. Outstanding deliverables: provide update Thursday (1) stress tests for insider vs. outsider board; (2) memo on public benefit vs. LLC; and (3) term sheet on the ICANN/PTI contract/SOW Need to understand scope of work and implied cost, in context of resources used by CWG 5. AOB a. CWG to send outreach to Bart for Section VI What have groups done as part of outreach to their own community. ACTION member groups: provide brief overview OFAC licencing is checked, Statement in proposal drafted by ICANN legal. Sidley is doing term sheets 6. Closing Remarks Next call 14 May 2015

1 0