- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

DT B Recommendation
by Bart Boswinkel April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Design Team B, please find included the proposed recommendations relating to the need of ccTLD community for an IAP for delegation and redelegations of ccTLDs. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

DT-B Report
by Grace Abuhamad April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of DT-B, please find attached the proposed recommendations in relation to ccTLD Delegation Appeals. DT-B conducted a survey, and the results are posted on the DT-B Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/GhEnAw DT-B looks forward to receiving the feedback from the CWG and discussing this further during our upcoming meetings on Monday and Tuesday. Best regards, Grace

1 0

Apologies for not beeing able to attend
by Lindeberg, Elise April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Hi Lise and Jonathan Unfortunately the intensive work planned on Monday and Tuesday next week will collide with an obligation I have to attend a national meeting that can't be rescheduled. I will be traveling in the afternoon on Monday, and be in this national meeting all Tuesday. So I will only be able to attend meeting 35 and 37 on Monday. This has been communicated to my GAC colleagues participating in the CWG as members or participants. We are aiming to get most of the meetings covered by governmental/GAC participation, but it's very challenging. Elise Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947

1 0

Some questions for Sidley-Austin
by Milton L Mueller April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

These questions are based on a close reading of the discussion draft. I will be in California at the ARIN meeting during the Monday and Tuesday calls and am not sure whether I can attend any of them, so here are some written questions. p. 1 Are we mincing words when we call the second option "functional separation?" Is there a clear and robust definition of "functional separation?" How, exactly, is the "functional" separation contemplated by the discussion draft different from what we now have (IANA as a department of ICANN)? Would it be more accurate to continue to call this an "internal to ICANN" option? p. 6 You say the PRF group could recommend to "terminate or initiate" an RFP for the IANA functions contract. I do not understand what is meant by "terminating" an RFP - do you mean terminate the IANA contract? You describe an escalation path for CSC that starts with PTI itself, goes to CSC, then to the PTI board, and then the ICANN board. If the PTI board was independent of ICANN, would it make sense to have the ICANN board as the ultimate escalation point? Shouldn't the final step of this escalation be the PRF and the possibility of a RFP to change providers? Are any legal issues raised by combining the functions of the CSC and PRF in order to streamline the proposal? e.g., by making the CSC automatically part of the PRF or a fixed proportion of the PRF? p. 7 In the internal option, you say the PRF would conduct periodic reviews of the IANA functions "in the same manner" as in the legal separation variant. But what would the boundaries of the review function be when IANA was part of ICANN and lacked its own governance structure? Would PRF be reviewing any and every part of ICANN that touched upon the IANA functions? E.g., since primary oversight of IANA would rest with the ICANN board, would the PRF be empowered to investigate any and every board member, the CEO or the board as a whole? Isn't it possible that such a review could stray into dissatisfactions caused by policy disagreements rather than IANA performance per se? I still do not understand how the principle of separability would be achieved with the so-called functional separation. Unless IANA is already structurally and legally divested, the political resistance to and economic disruptiveness of divestiture would essentially eliminate separation as a viable option. Can S-A provide examples of organizations that have agreed to surrendered critical functions to a competitor at the behest of their stakeholders? 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/>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley
by Maarten Simon April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Hi Milton, You mention ‘ a distinct governance body devoted to IANA performance and oversight issues’. Am I correct that your underlying assumption here is that the board of PTI will be a multistakeholder body and that they will oversee (and operate) the IANA function ? Best, Maarten From: Milton Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 20:48 To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley Chuck: I don’t know about the legal issues, but a “legal separation if needed later” model strikes me as a very poorly thought- out idea. There were three key advantages the S-A discussion draft identified for legal separation. One was that creating a legally distinct affiliate now would make it future separation more stable and easy. In other words, if you don’t lay the groundwork for separability now, it won’t ever happen, or if we try to make it happen t will be very ugly and destabilizing. The other was that there would be an explicit contract between ICANN and IANA. The third was that there would be a distinct governance body devoted to IANA performance and oversight issues. There was also a fourth advantage – an important one that you seem to have overlooked – raised by Mr. Boucher, which is that the legal separation dramatically increases chances of getting Congressional approval. The idea of “legal separation if needed later” sacrifices all four of those virtues for the present, with a promise that, somehow, we will move to it if needed later. But this doesn’t make sense to me. First, without Congressional approval there may be no transition at all. Second, assuming we follow this model who would decide if it is “needed”? Your proposal provides no mechanism for actually doing it, so in effect the promise of “if needed” is a hollow one. Third If it might be needed in the future, why not do it now? Further, the purely internal model that you would propose for the short term would require major by-law changes to be implemented for accountability purposes (people keep sweeping that fact under the rug). These by-law changes have to be carefully coordinated with the CCWG in a complex process. So apparently you want ICANN and its community to make a lot of complex and interdependent by-law changes and then discard them later or change the rules again? No, this idea doesn’t pass the laugh test. We have to choose one or the other. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:10 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley 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.”

4 7

DT-O link for notes, recordings and transcript for 9 April call
by Brenda Brewer April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 09 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896253 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896253%20> Notes and Action Items Action (Xavier -- by mid next week): Do a reconciliation of heads to FTE, identifying separately the IANA department's headcount vs the other contributing personnel, and add it to the analysis for clarity. Question from Olivier (copied from email): The costs that Xavier has provided us are current costs estimated by a method clearly laid out in the table -- and they are very helpful to show how many "hidden costs" there are. However, in your estimation, Xavier, if the IANA Function was to be standalone in a separate entity, how much premium would that command on costs? In other words, current costs benefit from economies of scale. Would you be able to estimate what this economy of scale is? 1%? 2%? 5%? 10%? I am plain guessing.... Discussion and response: If and when we get to a point where we need to get costs for a standalone entity, then we could work with Xavier to look into the parameters of such an assessment Shared costs would be where the economies of scale are. The less easily visible costs are the ones pertaining to communications and governance. For example, financial audit is done for the whole organization, not separate for IANA. So, there are costs that do not exist today, but could be created as a result of a separate entity for IANA. Action (staff): pull transcript for Xavier's responses and provide for the CWG. Are there any discounts or amortization for website/ IT services? Action (Xavier) by end of day Monday PST -- Give Xavier another opportunity to review his documents before sending to the CWG. He'll respond with documents by early next week. Add clarification on depreciation. Action (Grace): Edit and send the document. When sending to CWG, note that Xavier will provide budget documents by end of day PST on Monday. ---> Edit: Write "IANA operations costs" instead of "IANA costs" in the document.

1 0

DT O recommendations
by Marika Konings April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Design Team O, please find attached the proposed recommendations for inclusion in the transition plan following the recommended format (short form / long form). As you may recall, the purpose statement of DT O is: The costs of providing the IANA services by ICANN under its agreement with the NTIA are not sufficiently separated from other ICANN expenses in the ICANN operating plans and budgets to determine reasonable estimates of projected costs after the IANA stewardship is transferred away from NTIA. The need for clearer itemization and identification of IANA operations costs is consistent with current expectations of the interested and affected parties of the IANA functions, and the broader community as expressed in ATRT1 and ATRT2, to separate policy development and IANA operations. Increased detail is provided in the FY16 Draft ICANN Operating Plan & Budget but it is still not deemed sufficient for estimating the total costs of delivering the IANA services. As part of the development and submission of a complete proposal for the transition of the stewardship of the IANA naming services, the CWG is expected to indicate the information and level of detail it expects to receive from ICANN in relation to the IANA budget in the future. In addition to the recommendations included in the template, DT O also recommends that: * After the work of DT-O is complete, the outcome(s) of this effort may be found useful to contribute to submissions for the Public Comment period on the Draft ICANN FY16 Operating Plan & Budget <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy16-2015-03-18-en> . The DT-O outcome(s) should also be submitted as a contribution to the CCWG-Accountability considering their work on the Budget and their specific request to the CWG-Stewardship for information on this topic. For your information, DT O worked closely with ICANN Finance on this topic which provided very useful information with regards to the current IANA operational spending. The DT has requested that the ICANN Finance Team provide a report to the CWG as soon as possible containing the most current forecast of all IANA operating costs for FY 15, itemized to the project level and below as necessary. The Finance team will aim to provide this information by Monday end of day Pacific time (in time for discussion during the second half of the high intensity meetings). An initial version of the information was provided to DT-O, and it being reviewed for further clarification based on discussions in DT-O meetings. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Recording | DT-B Meeting #1 9 April
by Brenda Brewer April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Dear all, The AC recording for the DT-B Meeting #1 on 9 April is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896319 Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models
by Lise Fuhr April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Dear All, Please see the attached initial discussion draft of the two models from our legal counsel. The draft is based on the requested input on: the internal accountability/hybrid model with two closely related variants: accountability mechanism with legal separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation. Be aware that it has not been discussed with the legal committee yet, this is planned later this week. Please read it with this in mind. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise

7 19

Provisional Schedule
by Grace Abuhamad April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the provisional schedule for the high intensity meetings on 13-14 April. Brenda will send calendar invitations shortly. Monday 13 April 11:00 13:00 UTC Meeting #35 15:00 17:00 UTC Meeting #36 19:00 21:00 UTC Meeting #37 Tuesday 14 April 07:00 09:00 UTC Meeting #38 10:00 12:00 UTC Meeting #39 14:00 16:00 UTC (could be extended to 17:00 UTC if needed) Meeting #40 Best, Grace

2 1