- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN fighting separabiity in the numbers space
by Bill Woodcock April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Seun wrote: > Thanks for the update, its interesting that CRISP has not provided this > update on its global list where they communicate with the RIR community OR > perhaps you mean ICANN legal is presently at ARIN meeting where the > discussion is happening? if that is the case, i will really appreciate if > you could post url to transcript so i can follow as well. Milton is paraphrasing the report made by the ARIN members of the CRISP Team (myself, John Sweeting, and Michael Abejuela) to the ARIN meeting attendees. In that report, we presented the NRO’s slides (which Izumi had previously posted to the CRISP list), an update on the status of the RIR legal team’s negotiations with ICANN’s legal team, a summary of the challenges we believe we face in arriving at a transition, the results of ARIN’s outsourced legal report on ICANN accountability and California state non-profit corporation law, and John Curran (ARIN’s CEO, and ARIN’s delegate to the NRO EC) made a renewed commitment to a fully open and transparent CRISP process. > Its really news to me and i think its something that should be followed up. > I recall specifically asking ICANN board Chair about the proposal of the > CRISP team during the public comment session in Singapore and his response > was very positive (generally indicating they did not have any significant > issue with it). Exactly. The overarching theme of our session was that an open and transparent process is necessary to bring this negotiation to conclusion. On the one hand, we have a general statement from Steve Crocker, representing the ICANN Board, that is public and on-the-record, and seems quite optimistic about the possibility of a positive conclusion to negotiations. On the other hand, we have a number of verbal and private communications from the ICANN staff that appear to contradict that. What I think the CRISP Team has been very clear about, and continue to be very clear about, is that we can’t address innuendo, we can’t address putative or hypothetical objections attributed to third parties, and we can’t arrive at an executable contract if we don’t have from ICANN a clear and on-the-record response to the CRISP proposal’s principles and the proposed SLA. So, the NRO EC, and each RIR as it has its next meeting, can reaffirm principles of transparency, but that’s only useful if our counterparts in this process can abide with transparency. I very much hope that’s the case. We very much hope that if ICANN has objections to the specific principles enumerated in the proposal, that they bring them forward soon, so that a negotiation can take place, and a mutually-beneficial solution arrived at. That process cannot begin until ICANN makes any objections it may have known. And we’ll know when that happens because they’ll be delivered to the CRISP Team, either directly, or via the ICG. Steve wrote: > When I spoke at ICANN 53 and in other fora, I did indeed feel there wasn’t any significant issue. There are always details to work out, of course, but my feeling at the time was there was sufficient alignment of goals and requirements for me to express optimism. Yes, I believe your position was understood by the CRISP Team to be a general one, and I don’t believe anyone thought that you were suggesting that there was literally nothing to negotiate. The CRISP proposal’s principles are intentionally worded in very general terms, with the understanding that the RIR legal team and the ICANN legal team will need room to arrive at a mutual accommodation. Like you, we are very optimistic regarding a positive outcome, and I believe that both the degree to which we moved toward balance and mutuality relative to the NTIA terms under which ICANN currently operates, and the degree of latitude which we left to the legal negotiating teams, should be understood to be signs of our good faith and optimistic outlook. > Let me suggest it is very premature to conclude there is some sort of unsolvable problem. We could not agree more. > The persistent fact is the numbers community is getting the service it needs and ICANN is committed to continuing to provide it. Again, we could not agree more. First and foremost, the CRISP Team expressed its full faith and satisfaction in the service being provided to the Numbers Community by ICANN. There is no issue of quality, nor any question that the current level of service would be more than adequate to satisfy any SLA that we arrive at. -Bill

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #37 - 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #37 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896580 Action Items -- none Notes Focused first two meetings today on the functional/operational aspects, with review of DT work Today is focus on structural points (with assistance from Sidley team) DT-A just got off call. Areas of disconnect between IANA and DT-A are being clarified. Work needs to be completed in time for Thursday call this week. Structural Discussion * Went into IST with seven models (1st memo prepared by Sidley) * Narrowed models down to 2 variants (2nd memo addressing those two variants and sent on 4 April) * CWG questions were transferred to Sidley, and Sidley responded with a draft set of answers on 9 April. * Sidley has seen and reviewed the CWG questions, and translated into a "punch list": a set of questions that need to be answered. Primary focus of the call is discussion with Sidley. The CWG is the client. Legal Separation Variant * Create a legal entity that is wholly owned by ICANN (called 'PTI'). * ICANN would be the sole member * There would be a contract between PTI and ICANN * What would happen to existing agreements with other communities? * Who approves the budget? * Need a PTI board: what does the Board look like? * PRF: is this a standing team? Or put in place at the time of the review? If there are emergency reviews, then there is a benefit to having a standing group that can come together at any time. * What is the dependency/requirement of the stakeholder community/ Member group? * Legal entity could be sued * What is the relationship of the CSC and PRF? Is the CSC a part of the PRF? * Stewardship comes from the community * PTI Board could be ICANN controlled. It's an option for PTI to be fully dependent of the ICANN/IANA contract CWG needs to create specifications or requirements for CCWG Functional Separation Variant * No separate IANA legal entity * You can have the hallmarks of a separate entity but it's a division, no separate. * Challenges to the need to separate in the future * No need to recreate governance structures Punch List: Advantages in LLC include freedom to do more by contract, tax issues are minimal. Advantages of non-profit has the designator concept What would trigger a separation ? Who could trigger a separation ?

1 0

Notes and Recordings DT- | 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes and recordings for the CWG IANA DT-A Meeting #2 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895885 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action IANA get some more material in writing Notes DTA , awaiting approval from ICANN for release flowchart diagram Last Week call, Paul, Kim Davies, Elise Gehrich. Initial conversation around report presented. Some questions around procedures. Need for more detailed. DIPD process kicked-off, in the standard process Paul K advised he talked to NTIA legal, Detailed workflow, explains some of the questions around details in DT-A document In meantime IANA staff (Kim) looked at the document and identified some additional issues. IANA received document 1.5 weeks ago. Look at it from implementation perspective. Challenge with simplified workflow. Challenge of simplified workflow, does not capture corner cases, which drive the deviations Jay: when flowchart is released, discuss workflow again Bernie: Last week Elise submitted, be clear Kim had offered to participate in DTA Issue around the percentage. Difficulty to understand origin of he percentages. Example over last year 80 change request per month. With such low number 99% efectively means 100 % If monthly SLE, Jay: Highlight which percentages are causing issues, Issues with performance Kim: Description of some of the services are not clear to ICANN staff. Unclear what is intended to encapsulate Jay: easy to provide clarity Percentage are related to expectation of automation, those who are not linked to automation are lower Kim: some of the metrics are activities currently not undertaken How do measure when sms or mail are received Paul K" What would be helpful, what is used Jay: Measuring is pretty standard way of doing things, to measure the customer experience. Kim: Clarification is useful to understand viability of measures Other issues Lack of specificity of services Change to technical contact How to go from 15 days to several hours, need Paul : Issue only focused on automated interface, some are not New services being developed, authorization services Kim adding new contacts, presented in Singapore, needs community consultation and need to go Broader issue,, how does SLE are revised to support new functionality Paul K Authorization could be removed, if not introduced before the transition Some of the elements in SLE are not contracted functions i.e. are not overseen by NTIA, Implement some functions for others ( for example RIR), affect Root zone Driven by IETF action Paul K: invites IANA staff to work to go through document Bernie: need to clear up some of the unclarity. Need to work collaboratively on the document Jay: IANA offer was received and acknowledged. At the time it was taken up in order to allow the group to get Paul: IANA staff is welcomed to complete task Next steps: IANA staff relative to some of the issues, while wait for DIDP Jay: IANA is advising the group, not as participant Action IANA get some more material in writing

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #36 - 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #36 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896578 Action Items Action (Chairs): submit DT-O recommendations to mailing list for confirmation (no objections). Then, Chairs will submit to Public Comment on Budget & Operating Plan Action (Paul): send email update today after DT-A call. Notes 1. Opening Remarks (including recap) Worked our way through DT-O, DT-B, DT-N. Agreed to the recommendations of those DTs Question from Chuck on whether the CWG should submit public comments or not. --> agreement from the group to do this. Action (Chairs): submit DT-O recommendations to mailing list for confirmation (no objections). Then, Chairs will submit to Public Comment on Budget & Operating Plan 2. DT-A (SLE) IANA has asked the DT-A to amend the workflow chart, and DT-A has agreed to do so, pending a DIDP for the workflow chart. Action (Paul): send email update today after DT-A call. 3. DT-C (CSC) * Do not believe that the CSC should get involved in individual complaints between registries and IANA * Would it be useful for the CSC to at least be notified or made aware of the complaints? Yes and that's the case in document * Note that there is a DT-M escalation step that involves CSC, so if CSC does not want to be involved, DT-M needs an alternative * Include text in draft about "mutually agreed timescales" * Could CSC be empowered to trigger a ad-hoc/emergency/special review? --> The review could be triggered at the end of an escalation path * CCWG is building enhanced appeals mechanisms --> issue for DT-M (escalation) * DT-N assigned elements to the CSC. Is DT-C ok with these assignments (such as audits, etc). Conclusions so far: Need for a trigger for the Periodic Review that is outside of the regular 5 year period. CSC should have a role to play, but cannot be the only group to make that decision. 4. DT-M (Escalation) CSC is not involved in Phase 1. Proposal for CSC to be informed in Phase 2 and allow for CSC involvement if desired. ---> currently DT-C does not envision the CSC being involved. 5. AoB - none 6. Closing Remarks Three critical actions/issues: * DT-A requirement to close the gap on proposed SLEs, the current IANA SLAs, and to discuss this with the IANA team for post-transition * DT-C -- does DT-C accept the responsibilities implied in the table of reviews arising from DT-N * DT-M -- does DT-C accept the role proposed for it (by DT-M) in Phase 2 and Problem Management (Annex Z)? If not, how will this role be handled

1 0

Guiding Schedule for 13-14 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, Below is an indicative, guiding schedule for the CWG high-intensity meetings on 13-14 April. Acknowledging that some of the times are more challenging depending on your location in the world, this schedule could help plan your day/night more effectively. I will be following up with a required reading¹ list later today. This list will include the documents for each DT, as well as the Sidley memo and draft response, which are attached to this message as well. Also, please note that the Chairs have requested a meeting on Thursday 16 April at 17:00 UTC. Brenda will send calendar notices out. Guiding Schedule for 13-14 April NB: This is an indicative schedule and may be adjusted Monday 13 April 11:00 13:00 UTC Meeting #35 -- * DT-O (Budget) * DT-B (ccTLD appeals) * DT-A (SLE) either 35 or 36 15:00 17:00 UTC Meeting #36 * DT-C (CSC) * DT-M (Escalation) * DT-N (Periodic Review) 19:00 21:00 UTC Meeting #37 * Structural post-transition arrangements (with Sidley) Tuesday 14 April 07:00 09:00 UTC Meeting #38 * DT-L * Continue (if needed) on DT-C (CSC); DT-M (Escalation); DT-N (Periodic Review) * Implications of post-transition proposal (Section IV) 10:00 12:00 UTC Meeting #39 * Structural post-transition arrangements (with Sidley) 14:00 16:00 UTC //17:00 UTC Meeting #40 * Structural post-transition arrangements (with Sidley)

4 5

Question for Sidley
by Gomes, Chuck April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Are there any legal issues that the CWG should be concerned with if it considered proposing a functional separation model for the initial transition and a legal separation model if needed at a later date? 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.”

5 14

Recordings & Transcript DT-N - 10 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The recordings and transcript for the CWG IANA FT-N Meeting #2 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5289585 Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-F Meeting #1 - 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #1 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896691 Action Items Action Alan: will suggest language on the list re need to have clarity around change of cooperative agreement Action Alan: Check with IANA what is made public and what wil be made public. Action: Alan, and staff (B&B) to initiate drafting. Notes Task for DT F Recorded in template Suggestion to distinguish that need to be addressed before transition and could be done afterwards (see Alan's summary email) DNSSEC key management. NTIA operational involvement limited to changes going into root-zone David: No particular role in day-to-basis. NTIA oversees/approves (right word not clear) plan to change plans for DNSSEC key management Basic Recommendation DT F DT D recommendation, no Authorization needed. David C: No contractual relation between IFO and RZM What should be core recommendation: RZM should accept changes from IFO David C: No contractual relation between IFO and RZM. Suggest to enter into contract Milton: 2 suggestions: - formal relationship between IFO and RZM - NTIA needs to act Alan Question: should NTIA step out of or change cooperative agreement as part of the Transition? Milton: changes are needed, given language in cooperative agreement re Authorization by NTIA for changes David C: NTIA needs to approve changes explicitly to make changes. Action Alan: will suggest language on the list Questions Alan as listed in email Is there an opportunitry for accidental change, once change is submitted? Accidental changes not likely (software bugs aside) Potential for out-of policy changes? Is there a need to look at it in more detail. Need to understand what is in policy and what is not Milton: supports need to check, put checks and balances in policy/procedures and flag Chuck: Two kinds of policy. Standards and policy developed by ccNSO and GNSO. IANA operator or RZM do any interpretation by policy developed by ccNSO and GNSO. They do interpret technical side of policy (standard). The flow for ccTLD and gTLD is different. Alan: No need to flesh out in recommendation, but may need to delve into later. Chuck: Be specific about the type of policy. David C: under latest version IANA Function contract, no longer role of ICANN Board. IANA staff needs to do interpretation Alan: Check if there is need to change current process around Board . What does it mean if NTIA goes away. Limit this group to absence of NTIA Potential for accidental or malicious or omissions Alan: potential solution (comparing changes) David: if change request is made public, then comparison is possible, for example by TLD operator. David: presumption of confidentiality. Alan: Go to community to check if changes should remain confidential. Chuck : note the Alan: Recommend that IANA makes a change request public ACTION Alan: Check with IANA what is made public and what will be made public. Need to replace NTIA in discussion regarding substantive Root Zone changes. David C: possibly introduce trust but verify mechanism, Suzanne: Need to make a contract change necessary, Also needed, mechanism to be able to spend considerable amounts of money to prepare for potential changes ( for example, introduction of DNSSEC). Suggestion to formulate requirement. Alan: at times involvement of NTIA may have led to delays. Another way around, did NTIA involvement add value? Form direct experience, care and consideration have been put into process of changes. Milton: NTIA had to agree, and then change the contract. Somebody needsd to be in position to be convinced. These questions should not be resolved by DT F, are part of broader discussion of authority to write the contract ( governance issue) Alan: Someone needs to ask the right questions. David: NTIA does have access to vast array area of resources and Expertise (example around DNSSEC deployment) Alan: There are advantages of NTIA's involvement and these need to be replaced. Concentration of power to change in one single entity is issue. Chuck: current system of two entities, preforming the IFO and RZM role good practice, and should be maintained. Alan: what should be recommendation on this point moving forward? Accession as currently stands: NOT integrate the roles in to one single entity is accepted. The two-man rule is preferred. Milton: Support separation of roles Need to address of Security? Milton: separation of structure might be good idea. David C: Does this need to be part of robustness? Alan: could be David C: Budget Numbers need to be upgraded if infrastructure would be separated. revisit recommendation DTO Chuck: In discussion with Xavier, cost of separation were clarified. Cost shoul dno tbe primary factor, but ther cost factors come into play Alan: Need to mentioned, but not part of architecture recomemndation Potential change process slowing down the speed of RZ change implementation. Chuck: need to express best efforts should be made not to slow down. How to go forward? Alan, and staff to initiate drafting AOB Chuck: need for change of automation change when NTIA is removed. Identify changes needed? David C: Currently change in process may be needed, In short time as long as Verisign maintains role as RZM, no major changes needed.

1 0

Do we need a DT-X - RFP mechnsims and triggeres
by Avri Doria April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Hi, I asked this on the chat in the Adobe Connect, but want to pass the question here as well: > question for future discussion: on an outcome from the DT-N meeting. > We talked about triggers for an RFP and there seemed to be a general > sense that such triggers and mechanism for RFP should exist.. Do we > need a DT for recommendations on this issue. I.e what recommendations > do we make about RFP and their methods of being triggered. If so, i assume we would need one of those templates. Wanted to check if that is: - appropriate at this time - still the process. thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #35 - 13 April
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576 Action Items Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language Notes 1. Opening Remarks * * Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days. * 6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. * Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. * Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well. * There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: * * ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) * Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) * Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) * Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. 2. CCWG-Accountability Update (Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the CWG requirements. If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. Wiki link: <https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw> https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw 3. DT-O (budget) * DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez * Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure. * Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. * No disagreement with DT-O recommendations * CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? * Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal * If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto? * The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool Statement for CCWG: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. 4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals) * Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism * Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received) * Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. * So recommendation is to not pursue this now * The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. * For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. Statement for CCWG: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). 5. DT-N (Periodic Review) * These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. * First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that * Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with * The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment * Does the review expand to address IANA policy? * Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period. Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

1 0