- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal – 3 November 2014 Draft
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

Attached is a copy of the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal from Subgroup 1-2A-2B for review and comment by the full CWG. Note that there is one section that is still being worked and that is noted in this draft; hopefully that work will be completed this week. Lise has asked me to provide an overview of this as well as for the Section 1 draft that was distributed to the CWG list last Friday in the CWG meeting tomorrow. I will be happy to respond to any questions you have in the meeting tomorrow as well as on the list, and I am sure that other members of the subgroup would be happy to do the same. The subgroup will continue to serve as a resource for Sections 1 and 2A as the full CWG reviews them. We are currently working on Section 2B and hope to have a draft for that by the end of the week. I believe that all three sections will provide very helpful context for the work going on in Subgroup 3. Finally, let me acknowledge the members of our subgroup: · Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) · Chuck Gomes (GNSO) – Rapporteur/Coordinator · Kieren McCarthy · Seun Ojedeji (ALAC) · Tracy Hackshaw (GAC) · Fouad Bajwa (ALAC) · Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC) · Paul Kane (ccTLD) · Holly Raiche (ALAC) · Martin Boyle (ccNSO) · Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (ALAC) · Phil Corwin (GNSO) I also want to express thanks to Bernie Turcotte because he has been an invaluable asset in the staff support he has provided to our team. And special thanks need to be said to Kieren for using his excellent writing abilities and spending extremely long hours editing our documents. We are not done with our work yet, but it has been a good team effort so far. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 0

Revised agenda for call 4 November
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

Hi all, Given the feedback on the proposed agenda that was circulated last week, here is an updated agenda for the call tomorrow: Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Notes from last meeting & Review of action items - Update on progress to date - Update on summary of subgroup 3 discussions 3. Second reading of Principles 4. Third and final reading for Proposal on how to structure the work 5. Status on work subgroups 6. Any other business - Update on the Drafting Team for Accountability CCWG 7. Summary of action items and agreed items

1 0

30 Oct Meeting Action Item - RFP3 Summary of Options/Proposals
by Berry Cobb Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

Lise, CWG-Stewardship Co-Chair and CWG Team, As requested during the last meeting, staff has reviewed the CWG-Stewardship email threads in view of summarizing for RFP3 "Options or Proposals" that have been discussed by members and participants. In doing so, we noticed the documentation that has been started by Guru Acharya and found that there was no additional value in creating new documentation at this stage. Guru's document includes a brief summary of the five options discussed to date, a table that compares the options by category, and it also highlights the comments from the mail list by members and participants for each of the options (see <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4Ri RiE8/edit> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiR iE8/edit). However, we did observe that this documentation does not distinguish between the two sub-tracks discussed at the last CWG meeting as derived from SAC068. It was suggested at the call last week: SAC068's description of the NTIA Responsibilities in its Executive Summary seems to capture this quite well: . The NTIA performs the role of IANA Functions Contract Administrator for all the requirements contained within the Contract. . As the Root Zone Management Process Administrator, NTIA's role can be described as the "Final Authorization Authority" for changes to the Root Zone content and contact information for the Top Level Delegations. This is the most significant technical and policy activity currently performed by NTIA that is related to IANA activities. Essentially SSAC has broken this down into: . The Contract Administrator which has responsibilities for creating an RFP, managing the RFP process, allocating the contract and monitoring the execution and enforcement of that contract; and . The Root Zone Management Administrator which is quite succinctly described as the "Final Authorization Authority" for changes to the Root Zone content and contact information for the Top Level Delegations As such, it was proposed to further break down the deliberations in CWG-RFP3 into: . Replacement of NTIA's role as IANA Functions Contract Administrator . Replacement of NTIA's role as Root Zone Management Process Administrator We're hopeful that the summary provided by Guru will serve the purpose of a starting point for the RFP3 Sub-Team as well as the greater CWG, but if you are of the view that there is something additional that should be provided by staff at this stage to fulfil our action item, please let us know. Of course, if members or participants have any additional suggestions to further advance this documentation, please let staff know how we may be of assistance. Lastly, in preparation of RFP3's efforts, Greg Shatan as RFP3 Coordinator, sent an introductory email to the sub-group to inform their deliberations ( <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/2014-November/000019.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/2014-November/000019.html) It includes three attachments for the Sub-Team to review that also provides a proposed framework for evaluating proposals. Regards, Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
by Fouad Bajwa Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for governments and industry control. The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the long run however, ICANN would need some changes. The technical community has also shown its concern that it doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall into the hands of the whims of governments because it functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its present environment and role. Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open and inclusive relationship with the Internet community treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving preference to one group over another another. I don't have to go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again here. First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own set of troubles already. The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a developing country member citizen perspective. I am going through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work so far but require more transparency, accountability and functional relationships with the community ensuring open and inclusive participation in its policy development processes. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also added Option 4 > as a second preference just incase things get delayed with the > accountability process. > > Cheers! > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in a Google Doc which >> has been shared. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4Ri… >> >> So far, I note that the majority of our participants on the At-Large IANA >> Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> >> >> On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Names >> Community vs the other two communities Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 >> +0530 From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> To: >> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> >> How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted >> by the numbers community and protocols community? >> >> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. >> According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It >> proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and >> Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. >> www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 >> >> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no >> structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU >> between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing >> relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 >> >> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community >> appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to >> replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities >> will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual >> agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace >> NTIA oversight? >> >> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community >> because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA >> operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, >> and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and >> GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> Therefore, it is essential to either >> >> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual >> oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar toÂ >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… >> >> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate >> >> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that >> is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter >> into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. >> >> From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable >> because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. >> >> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and >> GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these >> two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. >> >> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be >> discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to >> reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and >> numbers community. >> >> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the >> names community. >> >> Regards, >> Acharya >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iana-issues mailing listIana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues >> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iana-issues mailing list >> Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Iana-issues mailing list > Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

34 129

IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal – 1 November 2014 Draft
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

On behalf of the RFP 1-2A-2B subgroup I have attached the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal – 1 November 2014 Draft for review and discussion by the full CWG. Grace – Please post it on the CWG wiki. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 1

Proposed Agenda for Tuesday, 4 November Meeting (14:00-16:00 UTC)
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 31, 2014

Oct. 31, 2014

Hi all, Please see below the proposed agenda for our 5th meeting: 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Notes from last meeting & Review of action items 3. Second reading of Principles 4. Third reading for Proposal on how to structure the work 5. Summary of discussions to date in relation to sub-group 3 to serve as a starting point 6. Status on work subgroups 7. Any other business 8. Summary of action items and agreed item

2 1

Rapporteur and or coordinator for the sub-groups
by Lise Fuhr Oct. 31, 2014

Oct. 31, 2014

Dear All, I am sorry to trouble you once more. But as discussed today during the call the sub-groups can decide whatever administrative mechanisms they feel serves them best. Sub-groups 1, 2A, 2B, 2C,3A, 3B have to report who their rapporteurs and/or coordinators are by the end of this week - Friday, October 31. Each group can report their rapporteurs and coordinators to Grace. Best regards, Lise

2 1

Schedule for Upcoming Calls
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 31, 2014

Oct. 31, 2014

Hi all, I have been asked to post a schedule of upcoming calls so that the CWG members/participants can plan ahead with their scheduling. Here is a draft list of upcoming meetings through the end of 2014: * Tuesday, 4 November at 14:00 16:00 UTC (meeting 5) * Thursday, 13 November at 14:00 16:00 UTC (meeting 6) * F2F 2 full days 19 20 November (meeting 7) * TENTATIVE: Thursday, 27 November 11:00 13:00 UTC (meeting 8) * TENTATIVE: Thursday, 4 December 14:00 16:00 UTC (meeting 9) * TENTATIVE: Thursday, 11 December 11:00 13:00 UTC (meeting 10) * TENTATIVE: Thursday, 18 December 14:00 16:00 UTC (meeting 11) You will note that I have modified the UTC alternating times by an hour this is to accommodate the US-based members/participants who have Daylight Savings Time starting in November. Have a good weekend and talk to you on Tuesday, Grace

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] TIME TO GET GOING RPC GROUP III
by Grace Abuhamad Oct. 31, 2014

Oct. 31, 2014

Hi Allan, I'm no Marika, but I can provide the answer to your first point. We have checked with our web team internally and the Wiki was the suggested tool. We created sub-team sections in the Wiki for that purpose, and could of course adjust them to what best suits the group for collaborative work. The other option would be something like Google Docs, which I could support you in, but is not a platform supported by the ICANN web team. From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:37 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] TIME TO GET GOING RPC GROUP III Colleagues we are quickly running out of time, Group III has to get its act together, and quickly. This is what I think we need right away: 1. A platform for collaboration We need a place specific proposals can be uploaded which has the capability of capturing the comments of the community all in one place. Marika can you suggest something. My fear is that a lot of what is being said on the list will have to be repeated Marika can you suggest something? 2. A common understanding of what we are trying to achieve. Many of the ideas that are being floated may be based on differing assumptions as to the objective. This has to be a priority for putting up in our collaboration space¹ 3. Specific Proposals from Group III participants We need fleshed out proposals that can be reviewed and commented on in a structured manner. I propose that we use a simple pro and con¹ approach. 4. Someone to call the first meeting Whoever you are, you will likely end up as the rapporteur/coordinator unless you can convince someone else to do it but unless someone volunteers, we will not accomplish anything

7 7

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Oct. 31, 2014

Oct. 31, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the notes and action items of today¹s meeting. As a reminder, the action items are: * #1 - Each sub-group should appoint a rapporteur for purposes of bringing output back to full CWG as well as a co-ordinator who will be responsible for moving the work of the sub-group forward. Each sub-group should discuss whether the role of rapporteur and co-ordinator should be filled by one and the same person or whether these roles should be split between two people. * #2 - All encouraged to review the revised principles that were circulated on the mailing list and provide input. * #3 - Staff to capture discussions to date in relation to sub-group 3 to serve as a starting point * #4 - Staff to create a new mailing list for sub-group 3 but with all WG members and participants subscribed to this list The recording, transcript and materials from today¹s meeting will be available here shortly: https://community.icann.org/x/qSrxAg. The next meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday 4 November from 14.00 16.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika

5 6