- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Notes and Actions from 13 November meeting
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Hi all, The 13 November meeting (meeting #6) ended an hour early today. Greg, as rapporteur of RFP3, motioned to use the time available to continue RFP3 discussions. This request was accepted and the second hour of the call was dedicated to RFP3. Please refer to the meeting notes, recording, and transcript to review this session. I am uploading full notes to today's meeting page <https://community.icann.org/x/zi3xAg> on the Wiki. I will also upload notes specific to the RFP 3 discussions to the RFP3 meeting page <https://community.icann.org/x/ZDXxAg> so that there is a clear archive. Action Items from the meeting: * Rapporteurs RFP 4 and 5 to be appointed before F2F * Lise to review Principles document and send out to the list before F2F meeting * Berry to include legends on icons in next version * All review comments and edits made. RFP 1 and RFP 2A. * Allan to do mapping between RFP 2B and RFP 2 C (second document) * All: look at Google document and add contributions in Matrix and Individual strawman docs * Greg to consult with staff on how to include contributions on list in documents * Staff to check whether Google sheets could be used for matrix document. * Greg to post email on RFP 3 elements to email list to solicit reaction * RFP 4 requested to start its work asap? Finally, the translated transcripts for the 22 October meeting have been posted (see them here <https://community.icann.org/x/HSnxAg> ). Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
by Brenden Kuerbis Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

I agree we need to simplify and generalize these draft principles. Hopefully this will allow us to quickly move on to actual proposal development. Following the discussions here, it seems the following would suffice as a guide to creating a proposal that ensures accountability: <principles> Independence - any proposal must ensure that the IANA functions operator be independent of TLD policy processes. Its role is to implement changes in accordance with TLD policy agreed through the relevant policy process; Separability - any proposal must ensure the ability to 1) separate the IANA functions from the current operator if warranted, and 2) to convene a process for selecting a new operator. Separability should persist through any future transfers of the IANA function(s); [Note: The NTIA's current contract already requires such separation] Transparency - any proposal must ensure that delegation or redelegation decisions implemented by the IANA functions operator and the rational for those decisions should be made public or at least be subject to an independent scrutiny as part of an ex-post assessment of service performance. <end principles> For me, these are the basics that are needed. While SLAs certainly need to be defined and referred to (e.g., what conditions warrant that the IANA function be separated from the operator?), I'm not certain we need them in principles. And while I understand the appeal of appeals, I think what we really want is some guarantee that the IANA functions operator follows exactly what is determined by policy (and that that process is fully accountable, has appeals, etc. - but this is another battle). Happy to see these revised, etc. I include the current draft principles language below for comparison. --------------------------------------- Dr Brenden Kuerbis iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > Mwendwa, > > > > Regarding your first question, let me first say that I don’t see > ‘bottom-up’ as a cliché. Secondly, it is a fundamental principle of policy > development. I think it is important to note that the principle is not > saying that IANA functions are operated in a bottom-up way but rather that > the IANA functions operator’s role is to implement changes according to > such policies. As I see it, the essence of this principle is not that > policy development must be bottom-up but rather that “the IANA functions > operator should be independent of the policy processes”. That said, is > the term ‘bottom-up’ essential to the principle? No. And I think that is > probably your point. I personally don’t have any problem leaving > ‘bottom-up’ in the statement but I don’t think removing it if the group > wants to do that would detract from the principle. > > > > If we want to keep the principle short and to the point, we could delete > the second sentence. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva > *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:59 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles > > > > *Independence of policy from IANA*: the IANA funtions operator should > be independent of the policy processes. Its role is to implement changes > in accordance with policy agreed through the relevant bottom up policy > process [Note: this does not pre-suppose any model for separation of the > policy and IANA roles. The current contract already requires such > separation]; > > > > Is bottom up a cliche we want to see in our principles? > > > > *Diversity of IANA’s Customers:* > *For ccTLDs,* the IANA should provide a service without requiring a > contract and should respect the diversity of agreements and arrangements in > place for ccTLDs. In particular, the national policy authority or > legislation (related to the ccTLD operator) should be respected and no > additional requirements should be imposed unless it is directly and > demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the DNS. > > > > "unless it is directly and demonstrably linked to global security, > stability and resilience of the DNS" > > Is there any example of a policy that can be implemented at the ccTLD > level that can threaten the DNS? > > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: twitter.com/lordmwesh > > "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on > higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson > > > > On 5 November 2014 20:40, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > > I agree 100% with Avri. Separability has to be a principle, otherwise we > have failed the accountability test. > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:16 PM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles > > > > Hi, > > While actual separation and the means of implementing that separation may > be solutions, I am strongly of the opinion that the potential to separate > MUST be a principle any solution is built on. It may never be exercised, > but it would be unacceptable for there to be a solution that prohibited or > did not otherwise allow any possible future separation of the function from > ICANN. > > This is one of several principles I feel I must personally argue for > persistently, and without which any solution would be unsatisfactory. > > avri > > On 05-Nov-14 10:45, Guru Acharya wrote: > > Avri, > > > > While I agree that separability should be a part of the solution, I don't > > think it can be made a principle. > > > > There are many who want IANA to perpetually reside in ICANN. They believe > > that self regulation will ensure accountability and that the need for > > separability does not exist. > > > > Therefore, separability may be a component of your solution rather than a > > principle for all solutions. > > > > Regards, > > Guru > > On 5 Nov 2014 04:00, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Comments: > > > > a. *Oversight, accountability and transparency*: the service > > should be accountable and transparent. > > > > > > I see no reason to include the term 'oversight' here. > > > > i. *Independence of oversight*: Oversight > > should be independent of the IANA functions operator and should assure the > > accountability of the operator to the (inclusive) global multi-stakeholder > > community; > > > > > > I recommend removing this as a principle for the following reasons: > > > > a. I do not think oversight is a principle, but one possible solution to > > the accountability issue. > > b. if 'oversight' is a component of the solution, I do not understand how > > it is independent of the stakeholders to whom ICANN is also accountable, so > > the notion of 'Independence' is not a principle I understand in this case. > > Yes any possible oversight mechanism should be independent of ICANN > > corporate, but I do believe it is accountable to the same stakeholders as > > is ICANN. > > > > I think we need a specific principle on accountability in this section: > > > > Accountability: Post transition accountability on the IANA Stewardship > > function should be to the Internet stakeholder community. > > > > I also think we need to add a principle called separability > > > > Separability: In the event that the ICANN corporation, or any of its > > subsidies, remains responsible for the IANA functions after the transition > > of stewardship, it should remain possible for a well formed review and > > contracting granting authority to reassign the IANA function to a new IANA > > service provider(s). The power of removing the function to a different > > operator should persist through any future transfers of the the IANA > > function(s) > > > > Under (c.) I recommend that we include the principle that service levels > > be subject to independent audit, with results published for review by the > > Internet community on an annual basis. > > > > thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > >

5 4

Proposed Agenda for Thursday 13 November
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Hi all, Below is the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday 13 November (14:00-16:00 UTC): Proposed Agenda for Thursday call 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Notes from last meeting, review of action items and project plan 3. Status on work subgroups -- Subgroup 1, 2A, 2B -- Subgroup 2C -- Subgroup 3 4. Update on F2F meeting agenda 5. Any other business 6. Summary of action items and agreed items

4 5

Fwd: [latinoamericann] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN
by Erick Iriarte Ahon Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

How This affects our working Group? Erick Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > Fecha: 12 de noviembre de 2014, 21:46:47 GMT-6 > Para: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > Asunto: [latinoamericann] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN > Responder a: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > > Nota: rescato este párrafo y pido comentarios > > "A U.S. federal court has agreed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that the country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are not property subject to attachment. " > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > A U.S. federal court has agreed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that the country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are not property subject to attachment. > > Claimants filed writs of attachment to seize from ICANN, the ccTLDs for Iran (.IR), Syria (.SY) and North Korea (.KP), (as well as internationalized top-level domains in non-ASCII characters for Iran and Syria) in order to satisfy judgments the claimants obtained in US courts against these countries. > > ICANN sought to quash the writs of attachment citing ICANN's technical coordination role in the domain name system (DNS) and arguing that ccTLDs are not subject to attachment. > > "We are pleased that the court ruled in our favor on the grounds that the ccTLDs are not property, subject to attachment", said John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. "The court's ruling demonstrates a technical understanding of the DNS, and the role of ccTLDs in the single, global, interoperable Internet. > > To read the U.S. District Court ruling, go here: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-q… [PDF, 346 KB] > > To read ICANN's legal filings, go here: > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en > > To read the original "Writs of Attachment," go here: > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1 > > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community LatinoamerICANN. > > View this contribution on the web site > > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of LatinoamerICANN. > > Reply to sender | Unsubscribe >

1 0

[IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Revised Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract
by Allan MacGillivray Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Please find attached a revised draft triage (CWG RFP 2C) of the IANA Functions Contract. The first document is the triage itself. I have revised the categories for the triage to put more focus on 'things we need to talk about soon'. In fact there are now four categories: A Provisions that may be important to the choice of the overall proposal, so they may need to be discussed early in the process, for example intellectual property. B. Provisions which likely need to be retained in a future arrangement to which NTIA will not be a party but which need not be reviewed early in the development of a transition proposal, for example the audit provisions; C. Provisions that need not be retained as they are specific to US government contracting practices, for example H.16 "Certification Regarding Terrorist Financing". D. Provisions that are out of the CWGs scope: numbers and protocol parameters. In the second document, I have put all of the provisions that fall into the "A" category above and have also grouped them into categories. Overall, this is a very subjective exercise and many may debate the categories I have chosen and how the provisions have been grouped and I of course invite your comments. That being said, I think that the real value of these documents is that they make the NTIA contract much more accessible - the 65 page contract has been reduced to 5 pages in the first document and the priority issues have been reduced to 3 pages in the second. Allan

2 1

IANA CWG & ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

All, This IANA CWG clearly comprises hard work and will inevitably bring out some strongly held views in critical areas of the discussion. In the light of the potential for such strength of conviction, the co-chairs feel it is timely to remind all of us of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior in this type of work. We have included a link to and copy of the text below. Please ensure you are familiar with these Expected Standards of Behavior and that you meet them at all times. Thank-you. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr IANA CWG Co-Chairs -- https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior Adopted 6 May 2012 Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process, including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils, undertake to: * Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the values contained in the Bylaws. * Adhere to ICANN's conflict of interest policies. * Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. * Act in a reasonable, objective and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment. * Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. * Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. * Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. * Support the maintenance of robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that policy development and decision-making processes will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders. * Conduct themselves in accordance with ICANN policies. * Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use. * Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process. * Promote ethical and responsible behavior. Ethics and integrity are essential, and ICANN expects all stakeholders to behave in a responsible and principled way.

1 0

Agenda for F2F Meeting on 19-20 November
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Hi all, Below is the proposed agenda for the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 November. I've also updated the Wiki page with the latest version: https://community.icann.org/x/iy3xAg Face to Face Meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 November DAY 0: Arrive Tuesday 18 November Welcome cocktail for all attendees at 18:00 20:00. DAY 1: Wednesday 19 November (9:00 18:00) 08:30 08:45: Coffee 08:45 - 09:30: Introduction & Review of agenda & Timeline 09:30 10:40: Principles 10:40 11:00: Coffee Break 11:00 13:00: Review of 1, 2A, 2B 13:00 14:00: Lunch 14:00 15:40: RFP3 15:40 16:00: Coffee Break 16:00 18:00: RFP3 End at 18:00 no planned meal/gathering DAY 2: Thursday 20 November (8:00 17:30) 07:30 08:00: Coffee 08:00 09:40: Update / Revisit RFP 1, 2A, 2B & Schedule for the day 09:40 10:00: Coffee Break 10:00 12:00: RFP3 12:00 13:00: Lunch 13:00 16:30:[1] <#_ftn1> RFP3 (continued) & Way Forward for RFP 4 16:30 - 17:30: Wrap Up Session & Review of Action Items End at 17:30 Departure that evening (or Friday 21 November if needed) Additional Notes: Dates: 19-20 November (2 full day meeting) Location: Frankfurt (Le Meridien Parkhotel) Remote participation available (virtual meeting room, phone conference line) For a list of confirmed in-person attendees, please see here <https://community.icann.org/x/mC7xAg> . [1] <#_ftnref1> There will be an ongoing Stakeholder Call <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-10-28-en> on Thursday, 20 November at 15:00 - 16:30. The recording of this call will be available. To learn more about the context of the call, see this blog <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monitoring-the-health-of-the-organization> .

1 0

Statement by JNC on IANA transition
by Milton L Mueller Nov. 11, 2014

Nov. 11, 2014

With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html

5 7

Draft of Principles
by Lise Fuhr Nov. 11, 2014

Nov. 11, 2014

Dear All, As per the request from last week's call we have produced a list of the principles from the Charter of the CWG and the ICG (attached). Also as discussed last week Martin Boyle and I have been elaborating a set of principles and/or the criteria against which we would review the proposals the CWG will be developing, in order to ensure that the proposal takes into account the different aspects that need to be covered. The draft of those principles and/or criteria are also attached to this email for your consideration. Given this is not directly in line with the work required to develop proposals I am suggesting that these should only be discussed on the mailing list for time being. We will allocate time at the Face to Face meeting in Germany for us to consider the latest version of these as they will have evolved from discussions on the list. Best regards, Lise

10 14

kpritz@thedna.org
by Kurt Pritz Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

kpritz(a)thedna.org

1 0