- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

ICANN fighting separabiity in the numbers space
by Milton L Mueller April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

I am at the ARIN meeting in San Francisco, and members of the CRISP team gave a report on the status of their proposal. That discussion revealed several very interesting facts about how ICANN legal is negotiating with the numbers community over the CRISP proposal. Apparently, ICANN legal is fighting very hard against the ability of the numbers community to terminate the contract with notice. It is also resisting the idea that the numbers community could do periodic review and competitive selection of an alternate provider if it was deemed necessary The CRISP team pointed out that the contract termination clauses of their proposed contract with ICANN was much less one-sided than the current NTIA contract, yet ICANN is still resisting it. It seems clear to me that ICANN will fight very hard to maintain control of IANA, and is doing everything it can to mitigate separability as a real option. This provides us with a very clear caution regarding internal proposals. When ICANN controls IANA and there is no legal separation we should not be naïve about how easy it will be to create "nuclear option" procedures that provide for separability. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

6 9

The Reverse Hybrid Model
by Greg Shatan April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

All, Paul Kane among others has suggested a variation on the current "internal" models. Rather than quashing it, I thought it was proper to give it appropriate consideration. As Paul is traveling, I thought I would put this together so that it could be given such consideration. For the sake of convenience, I'm calling it the "Reverse Hybrid Model." In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to perform the IANA Functions, as in the current internal model. However, ICANN would enter into an irrevocable agreement with the Affiliate for the IANA Functions. Rather than having the right to perform the IANA Functions itself, the Affiliate would be given the right to contract for an entity to act as IANA Functions Operator. (Thus, the Affiliate would be set up as a supervisor, not as an operator.) Initially (but not perpetually), that subcontracted entity would be ICANN, the current IANA Functions Operator. However, the Affiliate would have the option, under the circumstances designated by the CWG, to separate the performance of the IANA Functions from ICANN (e.g., by issuing an RFP and enter into an agreement with a third party). As with the current internal models, ICANN Corporate would be the only member of the Affiliate. The multi-stakeholder community would (s)elect the independent Board of the Affiliate, which would have a limited (and defined) scope. It may appear that ICANN is granting a right to itself, through the Affiliate. However, the key is that the Affiliate would have the oversight and stewardship responsibility over the IANA Functions, by exercising the rights and powers it has under the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator. In other words, the Affiliate would be the contractor with oversight of ICANN-as-IANA Functions Operator, and would also have the right to exercise escalation rights, up to and including issuing an RFP and potentially a contract to a third party if the designated triggers warranted it. The CSC and the PRT would be activities of the Affiliate, created by bylaws of the Affiliate, with a multistakeholder board providing oversight over the CSC and the PRT and ultimately over the IANA Functions Operator (initially, ICANN-as-IANA). Under the irrevocable agreement, ICANN would retain "ownership" of the IANA Function Operator rights but the Affiliate would (irrevocably) hold the right to subcontract for the performance of those services. Although ICANN would be the only member, we would need to insure that its rights as the member to override the Board were as limited as possible. While this does not structurally separate the IANA Function operations from the rest of ICANN, it does separate the stewardship and the decision-making rights regarding the performance of the operations from ICANN. As with the second option under the current hybrid proposal, there would be functional separation of the IANA Function operations from the rest of ICANN. While structural separation of the IANA Functions operations does make a certain kind of future total separation easier (spinning off the current IANA Functions Operator within ICANN), this is really the less likely form of total separation. The more likely form of total separation would be the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator, and that right would be structurally separated from ICANN. More importantly from an operational perspective, the oversight and stewardship over the operations of the IANA Functions would be structurally separated from ICANN. It would be firmly in the CSC, the PRT and the multistakeholder board. This would be the primary job of the Affiliate, putting service accountability front and center. Yet, it does not slight separability. I believe this proposal has sufficient merit to warrant due consideration. One of the reasons we have engaged Sidley is so that we can understand the viability and desirability of various models and mechanisms (and so I and other don't have to "play lawyer"). In that spirit, I am forwarding this model to both the CCWG and the Client Committee so that this "Reverse Hybrid" model can be appropriately considered. Speak to you all in a few hours, as dawn rises over New York City. Greg Kind regards to both Best Paul

12 26

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation
by Robin Gross April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

It is important to remember that the transition does not happen until we are done. That is the order of events. Not the other way around. We are not rushing to meet someone else's deadline because the transition cannot occur until we've got consensus and approval of the changes that must be made before it can occur. Sometimes we forget that we are the driving force in this timeline. Sometimes we think that we must rush to meet these dates, but that isn't how this process has actually been set up. I agree we need to continue to work quickly, but not because there is a limited window in the next 2 weeks to come up a proposal, but because we have a window in the next 4-6 months, and we should take that time to get it right. Thanks, Robin On Apr 14, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > Eberhard, > > I believe the contract WILL be extended. > > I agree content and getting accountability right is paramount. > > I also believe there is a limited window of opportunity to secure a transition. > > Keith > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el(a)lisse.NA> wrote: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> It is a FUNDAMENTAL issue, are we approaching this right or wrong? >> >> I think we did this wrong right from the start, and are doing this >> wrong. If we are getting this wrong, a transition would not achieve what >> we all want. >> >> There is no deadline which would make the transition fail, they will >> just extend the contract. >> >> We must not sacrifice content, under ANY circumstances. >> >> el >> >> >>> On 2015-04-14 13:39, Drazek, Keith wrote: >>> [...] >>> I am strongly in support of getting accountability reforms >>> "right," but I'm also sensitive to a possibly limited window of >>> opportunity to secure a transition of IANA stewardship. >> [...] >> >> -- >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >> el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >> PO Box 8421 \ / >> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Meeting Notes meeting #39 on 14 April at 10:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

CWG IANA meeting #39 on 14 April at 10:00 UTC Notes: Seun Ojedeji on audio only at this time. Opening Remarks * Purpose of call: discuss structural considerations. * The 'Punch list' will guide the conversation * There are issues with the order of questions in the 'Punch List' but it represents a good aide memoire * In Istanbul, the group set aside 5 models and decided to focus on 2 variations of an internal model * Emergence of a 'reverse hybrid model' on the list in the last few hours. For the present, we should not get involved in a detailed conversation on the 'reverse hybrid' * Try to converge our thinking as opposed to create new discussions. Chairs have change the order of the questions on the 'Punch List' Question 9 deals with 'which variant' --> sounds like the group is leaning torward legal entity With legal entity, if there were ever bankruptcy at ICANN, it would not necessarily affect PTI The entity can be sued (each party can be) Poll for the group (to get sense of the room): Which variant is preffered? - legal separation (56.5%) - functional separation (21.7%) - undecided (21.7%) ---> direction for Question 9: legal separation variant preference Question 6: Accountability on ICANN/PTI Contract Periodic Review could trigger separation - address accountability in contract? yes, relevant (but details need to be worked out) - address through PRF and/or CSC? the PRF can review the contract/SOW, but does not hold contract. The CSC is also a review/performance management structure. - Are other means required? The CCWG will enhance ICANN's accountability mechanisms and these will be important to structure. Question 1: What role for PTI Board? Insider board agreed on, subject to other new structures withstanding stress tests. And comprehensive contract. Edit (staff/DT-N): change the term 'Periodic Review Team' to something like 'IANA Review Team'.

1 0

FW: [client com] April 14 Meeting #40
by Jonathan Robinson April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Many thanks to Sharon. From: Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client@icann.org] Sent: 14 April 2015 15:40 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] April 14 Meeting #40 Dear all, As requested on Meeting #39, attached is a summary of certain of the key differences between the two variants of the internal accountability/hybrid model under consideration. Please note that given time constraints, this is necessarily at a high level. Best regards, Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

DT-X RFC Mechanism or work by any other formalism
by Avri Doria April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Hi Attached is a brief outline of a task definition, done in the form of section III templates. I understand that we may be past the creation of new DTs, however the real issue is not the formalism we use to get the work done, but that this gap be filled before we submit a report. The driver doc (open to comments) is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

4 3

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #38 - 14 April
by Brenda Brewer April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #38 on 14 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896590 Action Items Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested. Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit. Action item: DT L to update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete) Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG Notes 1. Opening Remarks: * Recap: focused on pulling together work of the group in the form of a draft proposal. Focus on work at hand - not opening new threads and avenues if at all possible. * Presentations of DTs - some open items identified that will be addressed in this meeting. * Structural considerations - major focus for meetings #39 and #40. Objective to move to single variant. * Dependency and linkage with CCWG needs to be in place - formulating additional details to be conveyed and identify dependencies in the proposal * Today a total of 3 meetings * Less than a week to produce a draft for public comment - convergence around DTs recommendations will assist in building the document. 2. Recap and tying up DT loose ends Day 1 * Assumption that work of DTs is agreed apart from those open issues identified * See document shared regarding DT open items DT A * Met yesterday with IANA staff and is working towards deadline to submit in time to review on Thursday's meeting. DT C * Does DT C accept the responsibilities implied in the table of reviews arising from DT-N? DT C to review this in further detail. Only two items that may require further thought (review of security audit report - CSC would currently only review whether it took place and whether there were no reason for alarm; AZM audit report), other items look fine at first sight. Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested. * What is the latest thinking of DT C with regards to the proposed role concerning escalation? No direct discussions yet based on yesterday's discussions, but an email thread has started to better understand the number of escalations that could be anticipated based on current experience (information so far indicates that number of escalations are minimal). Updated view needed by close of Wednesday (15 April) to be discussed during Thursday's meeting. Consider joint meeting between DT M, N and C to discuss and work out issues? Note, DT M did make a number of updates based on input of DT C prior to submission of its recommendations to address concerns. DT C may want to review those in further details (CSC not a dispute resolution body but more a facilitator/manager to ensure that issues get resolved). By avoiding complexity in the CSC, you may just be directing the complexity somewhere else if another body would need to be created or get involved. Try to find a compromise between desire for minimal role of CSC and need for a manager / facilitator for escalation. CSC is a function rather than an organization - objective to keep it simple and predictable. Escalation process in itself is a good structure but will need an appropriate home. Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. DT O * Updated budget information was received and has been shared with the mailing list DT N * Update recommendations to reflect that a periodic review of the IANA Function can be triggered 'on demand' - mechanism would also need to be defined (how does that work). Section IV could be a place to deal with implications / triggers? Where would RFP related mechanism belong? Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit. * Clarify that the outcomes of a periodic review are not limited nor prescribed DT L * DT tasked to review clause C7.3 of the current contract: Transition to Successor Contractor - In the event the Government selects a successor contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations. The plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months after date of contract award, reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate. DT L has reviewed existing plan in view of determining whether it is still needed, and if so, should it continue in current format or modified form. DT recommends continuation, with modifications, of a transition framework for the IANA functions should it be necessary for the IANA functions to be transitioned. DT recommends principles for the future evolution of the framework. Action item: DT L to update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months DT F * Met yesterday and will meet again tomorrow. DT expects to provide recommendations in time for CWG meeting on Thursday (17.00 UTC). * Will provide two levels of recommendations - high level recommendations, but additional work will needs to be undertaken to document other processes in which NTIA has been involved and will need to be replaced (e.g. DNSSEC). DT has identified some deficiencies in these processes which may be exacerbated by the absence of NTIA - further work may need to be done pre- as well as post transition to address these gaps. Budget authority will be required to investigate these issues. Priority 2 DTs * Chairs have reassessed priority two items * DT G - Chairs recommend that this dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. Call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations. * DT H (.INT) - Chairs understand that this issue is being dealt with by the GAC - await GAC input. * DT I (competition policy & conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors have provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance guidance. No need for a DT. * DT J (confidentiality & perception of conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors have provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance guidance. No need for a DT. * DT K (OFAC) - issue is being dealt with by ICANN as a whole. Proposed language will be circulated that should cover this commitment. 5. Implications of post-transition proposal (Section IV) * Dependent on structure - work that can be done in advance of those decisions has been limited. * Draft proposed outline for section IV was circulated to the CWG as part of the latest proposal. * CCWG has noted 2 additional stress test specifically relating to IANA aspects that will be added to the list. Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete) AOB * Financial analysis has been shared with CWG - breaks out IANA costs (not including capital costs). Analysis of all of the costs of the IANA services in the FY15 budget. Figures would change depending on which model the CWG would go for, but it is not possible to predict those at this time. Support functions allocation has been factored in - detailed list has been included as a separate attachment. * CCWG may benefit from further details, including rationale for certain recommendations. CWG to provide feedback in response to email sent by Mathieu - certain clarifications may need to be made. Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG Closing remarks * Next calls will focus on key questions for CWG: which variants of the models stand out, consider key issues that will need to be addressed

1 0

FW: DT-O - IANA Costs
by Gomes, Chuck April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Here is the budget analysis of the FY15 IANA costs as promised. Chuck From: dto-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:dto-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Xavier J. Calvez Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:50 AM To: dto(a)icann.org Cc: Samantha Eisner Subject: [DT-O] DT-O - IANA Costs Dear all, As discussed last Thursday, please find attached the draft Estimate of the ICANN annual operating costs of the IANA functions for your consideration. I will be available to help addressing any questions or comments that may result from any discussion of this subject with the rest of the CWG members. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG expectations from CCWG
by Lise Fuhr April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Dear All, Here is an email from the CCWG-chairs regarding clarification around the four areas that is to be considered by the CCWG. Please have those questions in mind when we are discussing issues related to the CCWG. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sendt: 13. april 2015 13:40 Til: 'Lise Fuhr'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: CWG expectations from CCWG Dear Lise and Jonathan, Thanks for giving us the opportunity to present an update of the CCWG at the beginning of your intense work days. You mentioned 4 items of input, upon which I would ask a few clarifying questions : * ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) My understanding is that this requirement would be to enforce the possibility to reject a budget from Icann which would not present the appropriate level of transparency around cost allocation in relations to the IANA funnctions. I also understand that the "transparency requirements" would be provided by CWG (budget DT). Is that correct ? * Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) Is the "confidence vote" related to the recall of the whole Board in case of dramatic loss of confidence ? * Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) I must admit I am not very clear what is currently expected through this item, and its relationship with the fundamental bylaw. Maybe some examples / use cases would help. * Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) My understanding is that this item will fade away following the latest recommendations from within your group, which point towards deferring this item to further work from the ccNSO ? I hope by clarifying these items we can achieve greater clarity and provide assurance to our groups about the interrelation of our work. Best Mathieu -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG IANA Meeting #38 | 7:00 UTC | 14 April
by Greg Shatan April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

With regret, I will not be able to attend the upcoming Call #38 (which is 3-5 am here), so that I can attend the remaining calls for the day. Greg On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > *CWG IANA Meeting #38* – Tuesday 14 April 2015 from 07:00 – 09:00 > UTC Time zone converter *here* > <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG+IANA+Meeting&i…> > > *Adobe Connect: **https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana* > <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana> > > The dial-in details are below - *please let me know if you require a > dial-out.* > _______________________________________________________________ > Participant passcode: *CWG IANA* > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > _______________________________________________________________ > > Dial in numbers: > *COUNTRY* *Number* *Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE > 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 > 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA > PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 > 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 > 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A > 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA – B 86-400-810-4789 > 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 > 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land > Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 > 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE > MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 > 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE > 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY > 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG > 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 > 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 > 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH > KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 > 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND > 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 > 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED > KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON > 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 > 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > >

1 0