- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Update on post Special IFR Separation Process
by Avri Doria May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

Hi, In addition to the discussions on the list, the remnants of the DT-N group had a call to try and resolve the issues. And then did a bunch of editing. We think we have simplified it somewhat. We did continue to make the recommendation that it be done by a group that was different than the S-IFR group that recommended the initiation of the separation process, despite the fact that some consider this counter to common sense. As far as we could tell the larger group was split on this issue and we gave weight to the consideration that as a checks-and-balances measure, the group that recommends an RFP be created not be the one creating and running the RFP. In terms of the composition of the separation process group, which we called Separation Cross-Community WG (SCWG) it has pretty much the same multistakeholder mix as the IFR, with a slight favoring of Registries, but representation from all stakeholder groups/ACSO. Again a compromise. The makeup of the SCWG, however, is a wider issue and might need further CWG-IANA discussion to reach an annealing point. We decided to base it loosely on the IFR team composition, which is already in public comment. Attached is the latest revision of that process. The file remains in the drive document and remains open for comment. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> After so many attempts, there is no certainty of having the right mix this time. But there is hope. The primary authors were Greg, Stephanie and myself. We also have created a punch list response table that is still being worked on. It can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxA…> avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

ICANN-PTI Term Sheet
by Hofheimer, Joshua T. May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Dear all, Attached please find a draft of the proposed term sheet for the PTI-ICANN IANA Functions Contract designed to replace the NTIA-ICANN agreement. For your convenience, we attach the following: • Term Sheet, in memo format (clean). • Cumulative redline against the initial term sheet included in the December CWG Draft Proposal • NTIA-ICANN Contract • Second CWG Draft Proposal (April 2015) We look forward to discussing this with you. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** 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

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

I don't think that is quite correct. Certainly, with or without ICANN moving the RZM away from the current IANA, the IETF and RIRs could in theory decide to stop using IANA and move their registries to TGNIITS (The Great New IANA in the Sky). I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still have the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy to the ICANN Board. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with TGNIITS requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses. If it does, it is still business as usual for us. If the new agreement with TGNIITS does NOT require adherance to our policy, then it would be interesting who they have replacing us. So the question is less about separation and more on whose authority are we doing what we are now doing. And I don't think there is a real answer other than one based on history. But I do not think that it truly hinges on where the current IANA function resides, as long as the other agreements, written and more importantly unwritten, do not change. Alan At 14/05/2015 10:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Hi, Alan. > >In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN >retaining "stewardship". > >Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider >(i.e., follow or don't follow). > >If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN >either), ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN. > >Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation? > >Rinalia >On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function >Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to >ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function. >-- >Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > >On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz ><<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Avri: > >The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a >Contract CO. Is this correct? > >-ed > >On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >hi, > >On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Avri, > > > > Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved > by the ICANN board? > >That is one of the questions asked? >Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. >Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't >that why we have the various redress mechanisms? > > > > > The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full > separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of > PTI from ICANN? > >Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an >independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this >might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. >As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the >type of decision they might need to take. > >avri > > > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM > > To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process > > > > Hi, > > > > I did an update on the file. > > > <<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> > > and attached a pdf version to this note. > > > > * Received some comments which I tried to include > > * Responded to Sibley comments, I think > > * Largely separated the process from who does it > > * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: > > o who dies it: > > + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR > > would be designated] > > o how it is initiated: > > + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as > > approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case > > of Board rejection via escalation procedure. > > + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO > > + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs > > o method of operation > > + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made > > by CWG) > > # > > > > A process initiated in the IFR > > > > # > > > > Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would > > follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross > > community working groups. In this case the participants > > would be either (decision to be made by CWG): > > > > 1. > > > > Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the > > Separation Review. > > > > 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and > > proportions to include the broader community as this > > will affect the entire community. > > > > > > Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting > so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something > that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. > > > > avri > > > > o > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > <http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. ><http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >-- >NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential >and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of >the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you >must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have >received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete >this message immediately. > > > >---------- > > >CWG-Stewardship mailing list > ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

9 27

Agenda for Meeting on Tuesday at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the meeting on Tuesday at 17:00 UTC: Proposed Agenda for 19 May CWG-Stewardship Meeting 1. Opening Remarks 2. Public comment a. FAQ update: FAQs to be included as part of final proposal b. Translations: the CWG-Stewardship could allow an extension until 26 May at 23:59 UTC for those dependent on translations. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requests a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on translated versions. c. Update on comments received (view them here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 /index.html) 3. Design Team Updates a. DT-F b. DT-SR / DT-N c. Other? 5. Punch List Review (to be provided by staff) 6. Forward planning 7. AOB a. No call on Thursday 8. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Translations for CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Foreword (aka Executive Summary)
by Grace Abuhamad May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Dear all, The translations for the Chairs¹ Foreword to the 2nd Draft of the CWG-Stewardship proposal were received on Friday (attached). These translated documents are posted in Word and PDF on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw) and will be posted shortly on the Public Comment page (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0 4-22-en). Language Services is continuing to process the 150-page 2nd draft for delivery as soon as possible (expected this week). Thank you, Grace

2 1

Vol. 5 IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad May 17, 2015

May 17, 2015

Original post here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-5-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions-special-edition-on-the-icann-accountability-enhancements-draft Volume 5: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions, Special Edition on theICANN Accountability Enhancements Draft CCWG-Accountability draft now open for public comment On 4 May, the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) published its initial draft report on the elements of the ICANN accountability framework that it has identified as essential to happen, or be committed to, before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place. This initial draft report will be open for public comment for 30 days. Following community input during the comment period and at ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> in Buenos Aires, the CCWG-Accountability will produce a second draft report for a 40-day public comment period in July. The recommendations in the initial draft now out for comment are not presented as the consensus of the CCWG-Accountability. Instead, the CCWG-Accountability has published the draft to solicit feedback from the community on the CCWG-Accountability’s approach as well as guidance on several options under consideration. The CCWG-Accountability initial draft report is the fourth major community developed proposal to undergo public consultation as a part of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability processes. Key links * Draft report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-without-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> – 108 pages [no annexes] * Draft report & annexes <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> – 143 pages * Graphical Supplement <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-graphic-04may15-en.pdf> [12 pages of pictorial representations of the main concepts included in the draft report] * Announcement of call for public comments <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> * Archive of public comments received <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04 may15/> How to submit a public comment Comment on the draft report, with <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> or without <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-without-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> annexes, by 3 June 2015, 23:59 UTC (convert to your time zone <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=End+of+Public+Comm ent+Period+-+CCWG-Accountability+Work+Stream+1+draft+report&iso=20150603T235 959&p1=%3A> ): * Respond to any or all of the 3 general questions and 15 issue-specific questions related to Work Stream 1 included in the announcement of the public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> as well as in section 11 of the draft report. There is also an additional question on Work Stream 2 to help guide the CCWG-Accountability with its work. * Send your comments to: mailto:mcomments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15@icann.org * When you receive an automatically generated email asking you to confirm your submission, please follow the instructions in the email to ensure your comments are submitted to the archive of public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> . To help better understand the contents and context of the draft proposal, you may wish to join one of thetwo following webinars <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773485> live: * 11 May from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar&iso=20150511T11&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 11 May from 19:00 – 20:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar&iso=20150511T19&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) The webinars will also be transcribed and published from this CCWG-Accountability webpage <https://community.icann.org/x/rYQ0Aw> in the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish). A timeline of events and processes related to the accountability proposal Below is a summary of upcoming key meetings and processes specifically related to Work Stream 1 draft report and its interactions with the naming related portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal. A list of dates associated with a wider range of stewardship transition related activities is included near the end of this report. 4 May 2015 The CCWG-Accountability halts work on draft Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements. Work Stream 2 accountability work continues. 20 May 2015 Last day for community comments on the CWG-Stewardship second draft proposal. 1 Jun 2015ICANN staff publishes report of public comments on the CWG-Stewardship’s second draft proposal. 3 Jun 2015 Last day for community comments on the ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). 4-29 Jun 2015ICANN staff compiles a report of the public comments received on CCWG-Accountability’s draft report on Work Stream 1-related ICANN accountability enhancements. 5-18 Jun 2015 The CCWG-Accountability reviews public comments on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements and prepares documents for ICANN 53 briefings with the community. 8 Jun 2015 The CWG-Stewardship presents revised version of its proposal to their chartering members (Supporting Organizations and Advisory Councils) for review and adoption. 8-25 Jun 2015ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO review and consider adoption of CWG-Stewardship’s revised proposal. 19 Jun 2015 The CCWG-Accountability meets for working session before ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> . 21-25 Jun 2015All ICANN communities and other parties interested in IANA meet during ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> in Buenos Aires, and online via remote participation, to discuss the IANA stewardship transition in a number of cross-community as well as stakeholder-specific sessions. (See preliminary schedule <http://buenosaires53.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann53_blockschedule_ap ril2015.pdf> ). 25 Jun 2015 The CWG-Stewardship delivers the final proposal on the naming related portion of the IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://ianacg.org/> ). 20 Jul 2015 The CCWG-Accountability publishes second, revised, version of draft report on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements for public comment. 29 Aug 2015 Last day for community comments on the second draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO review and consider adoption of CCWG-Accountability’s revised proposal. 22 Oct 2015 The CCWG-Accountability present Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements report to the ICANN Board. Updates on other transition-related activities IETF Working Group on Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) On 30 April, the chairs of IETF, IAOC and IAB notified <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> members of IANAPLAN <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/documents/> of the status of work between IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between IETF and ICANN in relation to IANA’s performance of the protocol parameters function. Following that notification, there was much discussion on the IANAPLAN mailing list <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/maillist.html> about the possible reasons behind ICANN’s communication to IETF that it believed that agreeing to the proposed text of the SLA would possibly put ICANN in breach of its existing agreement with the NTIA. The discussion was forwarded <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/003018.html> on to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list and, in response, ICANN clarified <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003029.html> that the concerns it had expressed were not related to the proposed stewardship model for the protocol parameters function of IANA after the expiration of ICANN’s contract with NTIA, but were specifically related to constraints that applied solely while the current contract with NTIA remained in place. ICANNexpressed it did not want to pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition. A further email was posted <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00268 6.html> to the CCWG-Accountability list by a member of the ICANN Board containing more information on the MoU and the process IETF can invoke to terminate the agreement. Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team As a result of the CRISP <https://www.nro.net/crisp-team> Team’s draft proposal for the numbers component of the IANA functions, the Number Resource Organization (NRO <http://www.nro.net/> ) has produced a Draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for theIANA Numbering Services <http://www.nro.net/sla> . The draft SLA, which has not been reviewed by the CRISP Team nor negotiated with any other parties, including ICANN, is available for comment <https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num bering-services> until 14 June 2015. Comments received are archived on the NRO’s ianaxfer mailing list <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer> . IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) The ICG <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> has announced that it has published its final process <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May1 5-final.pdf> for how it will handle comments sent by members of the community to the ICG forum <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/> . Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via icg-forum(a)ianacg.org. In response to the SLA-related discussions described in the sections above, the ICG has posted a statement on its homepage <http://www.ianacg.org/> that encourages all interested parties, including ICANNstaff and Board members, to participate within the open, transparent processes being used by the three operational communities to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions away from NTIA. Board Chair, Steve Crocker, issued a response <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000450.html> . The ICG has also created Twitter <https://twitter.com/ianastewardship> and Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship> accounts to assist with disseminating information about their activities. Transition timeline and implementation The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has written to the chairs of theICG and CCWG-Accountability requesting information on projected dates related to completing the transition proposal, as well as the estimated time to implement the transition, to assist the NTIA in planning for the transition. The NTIA has requested this information be communicated by the end of June. * Letter to the CCWG-Accountability <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00288 0.html> * Letter to the ICG <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150506/ 77c3dd16/attachment.pdf> U.S. Congressional Hearings On 13 May, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing titled Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet's Operation <http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=7E5AF16E-B1F8-45B8-803B-9E 389A9B745E> . ICANN submitted written testimony for the record. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/icann-to-judiciary-com mittee-13may15-en.pdf> Later that afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee held a separate hearing titled, Stakeholder Perspectives on the IANA Transition <http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/members-review-dotcom-act-and -discuss-transition-internet-oversight-functions> . ICANN also submitted written testimony for the record <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/swinehart-to-walden-es hoo-12may15-en.pdf> in that hearing. Upcoming key dates 14 May 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #47 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773685> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 19 May 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #33 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 6:00-8:00 UTC ICG Teleconference <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> (TBC) CWG-Stewardship Meeting #48 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 21 May 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #49 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 26 May 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #34 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 12:00-14:00 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #50 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 28 May 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #51 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 28-29 May 2015CWG-Stewardship Intensive Working Days <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> 2 Jun 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #52 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC CCWG-Accountability Meeting #35 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 19:00-21:00 UTC 4 Jun 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #53 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 14 Jun 2015Deadline for comments <https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num bering-services> to NRO on Draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANANumbering Services <http://www.nro.net/sla> 18-19 Jun 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires, all day 19 Jun 2015 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1, ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires, all day 21-25 Jun 2015ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires IANA stewardship in the news 7 May 2015Dot What? The surprisingly interesting history of the Internet domain system <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/05/icann_transit ion_the_interesting_history_of_the_internet_domain_name_system.html> , Slate [EN] 6 May 2015专访张建川解读ICANN互联网管理权移交建议草案内容 <http://roll.sohu.com/20150506/n412478971.shtml> , Sohu.com [CN] 5 May 2015Le Burkina veut participer aux instances de la gouvernance mondiale de l’internet <http://burkina24.com/2015/05/05/le-burkina-veut-participer-aux-instances-de -la-gouvernance-mondiale-de-linternet/> , Burkina24 [FR] 4 May 2015Internet in Ghana not controlled – Omane Boamah <http://www.gbcghana.com/1.3411406> , Ghana Broadcasting Corporation [EN] ICANN will IANA dauerhaft betreiben <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ICANN-will-IANA-dauerhaft-betreiben- 2631519.html> , Heise Online [DE] 28 April 2015ICANN ABRE NOVA CONSULTA SOBRE TRANSIÇÃO DE FUNÇÕES IANA <http://www.telesintese.com.br/icann-abre-nova-consulta-sobre-transicao-de-f uncoes-iana/> , Tele Síntese [PT] You can play a role in IANA’s future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA’s stewardship and ICANN accountability.For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> . For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org> .

1 0

Fwd: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
by Grace Abuhamad May 17, 2015

May 17, 2015

Hi all, Forwarding a correspondence between ICANN Board Chair, Steve Crocker and ICG Chair, Alissa Cooper. Thanks, Grace Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > Date: May 13, 2015 at 4:36:28 PM EDT > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, internal-cg(a)ianacg.org, > Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org> > > Alissa, > > Thanks again for your query. I have copied the statement you referred to so > this message contains all of the relevant context. > > Let me make this short and unambiguous. We agree with you. ICANN will make > its positions known publicly and we will use the available forms of > publication, including the relevant public comment processes. > > We will also file this exchange through the public comment process as well. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker, nn behalf of the board and staff of ICANN, > > P.S. I have cc¹d internal-cg(a)ianacg.org, but I noted from my last response > that I do not have posting rights. Please do forward. > > > > > > On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if >> ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at >> <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-statement-on-contracts-and-other-agreements/>. >> Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft >> proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that >> those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter >> and inform us of your findings. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > Copied from > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-statement-on-contracts-and-other-agreements/ > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition >> proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions >> with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements >> called for in their respective transition proposals. >> The ICG expects as it has from the very beginning of the transition process >> that all interested parties will express their opinions about the >> transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community >> processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and >> mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the >> communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any >> final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is >> crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within >> the community processes as early as possible. >> >> -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0

.mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)
by Greg Shatan May 16, 2015

May 16, 2015

In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-a… The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary): - the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed. We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy. Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment. Greg

7 8

update on DT X Separation Process
by Avri Doria May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Hi, I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> and attached a pdf version to this note. * Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) # A process initiated in the IFR # Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG): 1. Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review. 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community. Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. avri o --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

9 19

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
by Alan Greenberg May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Chuck (and all), As you know, I do not work for a registry and have no financial interest in any of this. But I *DO* have a very strong interest in having IANA do a superlative job. As long as the SLEs we are asking for are reasonable, and by that I mean are in line with what they are actually doing over the last several years, with a reasonable cushion to address future unexpected situations), and with the provision of some requests being on the longer tail of the timing curve (since there will always be a variety of special circumstances), then I think you can expect widespread support from the community. Lesser commitments significantly below this without a rationale that is acceptable (and better than we simply want to cover our rears) are going to be a hard sell! Alan At 09/05/2015 09:51 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Andrew, > >You clearly have a lot more confidence than I do that it will be >possible to implement tighter SLEs after the transition. My >pessimism is based on 15 years of experience with gTLD registry >contracts in which ICANN readily agreed to SLAs for registries but >resisted strongly to SLAs that impacted them and only more recently >have they started to give some on that. Hopefully new >accountability mechanisms will change that in the future, but until >it happens, I will be doubtful. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan >Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:37 PM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document >with clarifying background info. > >On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the > running operational system, but they are not. > >Yes, they are. The operational system includes comparisons by an >observer of conformance to service levels. If you change the >service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just >look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they >exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so >on. It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a >completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, >is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now. > > > We are not talking about changing running code but rather > changing customer service expectations to align them with what the > IANA team has been delivering for some time. > >In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is >not directly related to the transition because we can." > > > Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the > best possible service to meeting customer needs. > > > >_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled >out one at a time. At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem >that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same >time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed >by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the >tremendous history of reliability to point to). I should expect us >all to want the same prudence be used in this case. > >Best regards, > >A > >-- >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

4 4