- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

FW: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions
by Grace Abuhamad April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of the Chairs. This is posted to the CWG Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/kyEnAw Apologies for the delay. There is a CRISP call today at 20:00 UTC. There call is open to silent observers: > Join WebEx meeting > <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18… > f> > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18… > Meeting number:700 520 727 > Meeting password:crisp > > > Fra: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] > Sendt: 6. april 2015 10:57 > Til: 'Izumi Okutani'; 'Lise Fuhr' > Cc: 'Alan Barrett' > Emne: RE: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related > Functions > > Dear Izumi, > > Thank-you for this letter and for the brief follow-up discussion in person in > Istanbul. > > The CWG-Stewardship meeting in Istanbul was comprehensive and productive. > Lise and I chose to wait until after this meeting to respond to your note > because we wanted to share with you the outcome of this meeting. In our > Chairs¹ Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-29-en> , > you will see that the group made significant progress on both the operational > and structural components of the names proposal, through the Design Team > working methodology and retention of independent legal counsellors. > > In terms of our timeline, we have moved our public comment launch date to 20 > April, with a final submission to the ICG anticipated for the ICANN 53 meeting > in Buenos Aires. We have adjusted our timeline per request by our chartering > organizations in order that they have enough time to ensure consensus support > for the names proposal within their respective communities and using their > specific processes. > > We recognize your concerns regarding the possibility that our proposal might > affect the numbers community and we are very open to discussions with you and > the CRISP team in advance of our submission to ICG. However, we have not yet > finalized a proposal and our legal advisors are working with us to analyse the > implications of the so called internal model. Therefore, our suggestion at > this stage is to have a call with you and Alan to give an overview of where we > are and consider any possible implications for the numbering community. > > We remain available to respond to any questions you or your community may > have, and appreciate your interest in and support for the names community as > we all work to achieve a successful IANA Stewardship Transition. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan and Lise > CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] > Sent: 22 March 2015 04:58 > To: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr > Cc: Alan Barrett > Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related > Functions > > Dear Jonathan and Lise, > > > I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal > (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community's response > to the ICG's Request for Proposals. > > It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions > progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the > process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in > June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for > collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three > stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain > positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through > this process. > > The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected > communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development > of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that > satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority > for all parties. > > With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names > communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding > any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in > advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG. > > This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all > communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among > the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately > within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses > efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the > ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up > consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and > success of any final proposal to the NTIA. > > I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work > collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA > Stewardship transition. > > > > > Kind regards, > > Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett > CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair > ___________________ >

1 0

FW: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Forwarding a bounced message on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson. From: CW Lists <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:13 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: Fwd: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April FYI - CW Begin forwarded message: > From: CW Lists <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: Re: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April > Date: 7 Apr 2015 18:26:51 GMT+02:00 > To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > Good afternoon: > > With a view to thisevening's CWG call may I offer a few comments: > > 1. Regarding complexity: In the Principles, we have: > > 3. Fit for purpose: Any new IANA governance mechanisms should not be > excessively burdensome and should be fit for purpose. > > However, meanwhile, we have 60+ pages of the names Transition Plan (with more > to come from the DTs), 30+ pages of advice and comments from Sidley and no > information, yet, as to how these Names proposals will be integrated with the > IETF and RIR proposals. > > I fear that we are well on the way to a 'burdensome' outcome. > > 2. Regarding Accountability: The Client group has been discussing with Sidley > the relation between ICANN accountability and IANA accountability. It is > argued that IANA accountability has to be established by CWG independently of > and in addition to ICANN accountability in the CCWG. > > Be that is it may, and whatever were the merits of the case, today that is > certainly not a matter for the Client group and Sidley. All stakeholders have > designated their participants in ICG, CCWG, CWG, by and large avoiding > duplication and respecting the specificity of each group, including their own > accountability and reporting back. > > At this late stage in proceedings, any basic change in those arrangements is > distinctly not on. That would involve shifting the whole architecture of the > transition process, albeit already heavy enough. > > 3. Regarding Separability: It has recently been stated that legal separation > of IANA from ICANN is a requirement. I do not agree. It is at most a last > resort fail-safe should all normal recourse fail. > > From my point of view and experience, the overwhelming case against legal > separation of IANA is that it would create a very small technical entity with > substantial power over the interoperability of the global Internet. As such it > could easily become a target for capture or acquisition. Protecting against > that outcome would require the re-constitution of the oversight that has been > so laboriously - and to date imperfectly - created in ICANN. > > In that context, I continue to have reservations about the term 'customer' of > IANA. They are Users of IANA. 'Customers' implies payment for services > rendered. That would cross a Red Line for many of us. > > 4. Regarding competition: It has been suggested that the CSC would be > uni-stakeholder, i.e. Registries only. I must say that had not occurred to me. > It is not a very good idea and is an invitation to conflict of interests: > > (a) the Registry business is highly concentrated: do you include or exclude > the largest Registries in the world? (b) we are told that there will soon be > hundreds of gTLD Registries; most of them very small. All of them with an > existential interest in IANA and the Root Zone. How will they be represented > in the CSC? > > (b) thanks to the (flawed) 'vertical integration' policy, it is now possible > for a significant number of Registries to be owned by a single Registrar or > Company. What is to prevent CSC being dominated by a small group of large > Registrars and a few Internet companies? > > All oversight and decision making bodies must have a balanced > multi-stakeholder composition and powers. Granted that is asking much from > most stakeholders, which is why it is critically important to create as few > new entities as possible. > > Regards > > CW > > > > > On 03 Apr 2015, at 00:59, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: >

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-C Meeting #6 8 April
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-C Meeting #6 on 8 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895505 Action Items Action Staffan: draft note to reflect concerns of DT C first for DT C Action Bernie and Bart look at template to submit information and material Action staff: Send Doodle poll for call l on Friday 10 April. (completed) Notes CSC Charter Version includes everybody's comments Did everybody read latest version? Comment Staffan: Comments from DT M Stephanie Donna :Question, what is overriding DT? Issue around remit of CSC Ability for CSC to provide sub-committees Discussion of CSC charter (Stephanie version) Mission Issue around Mission third paragraph: should CSC be mepowered to initiate communicate process? Comment Martin: CSC should defer issue up to ccNSO and GNSO. triggered by work of the CCWG, whereby Staffan: CSC should be triggering entity, what are triggers also discussed in DT M Need to define terms as suggested (serious and persistent deficiencies. Donna: Alternative is to send it up to ccNSO and GNSO., despite of recommendations of CCWG, which are not known yet. Martin: Referencing up, avoids the need to defeine terms. Avoids Stephanie: day-to day monitoring is the core activity. there is a need to handle the issues. Mission statement needs to be updated Scope of Responsibilities Issue that individual concerns handled in timely way. Comment: Keep in Annex or as part of SLE. Martin: CSC viewed as avenue to deal with complaints of individual operators Need a second level Donna: Take out text out and keep it for the CSC basic document Should periodic reviews of SOW be under remit of CSC? Martin: should be picked up by GNSO and ccNSO Staffan: Keep as placeholder Suggested changes by David Conrad: Martin: Not happy with introducing an Authorization Function. David: Role of Authorization This is about deployment of technological changes, NOT about changes to the root zone file. Example, changes to changes Need of some body, with oversight, empowerd to create body of experts that are able to provide oversight. Staffan: Need for this role is clear, however questionable whether absolutely necessary for CSC to do. If not within CSC, where to put it? Martin: It woul dneceesary to use the regualr meeting, but looking at ad-hoc process. IANA Function Operator should consult widely. Donna: in interest of time. What is result of consultation, what is next logical step. Await language from David Composition Donna: The GNSO is much larger body, hence introduction of non-registry liaison Martin: Balance issue. ccTLD perform some of the roles Staffan: depends on existence of MRT. Keep in as placeholder. Stephanie: supports Donna fro the recors. The balance should be between gTLD and ccTLD operators Donna: Selection process, copied from SSAC. Unclear whether to be included Term of representatives. Term of 2 years agreed, Meetings: Agreed Secretariat: IANA Function Operator Review: Separate review charter from review of performance Process for remedial action Focus on Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. Who may inititaite second process, who has standing? Martin: major issues with remedial role of CSC, in particular for individual cases. Only is case of systemic failures potential role for CSC. General question: who should have a role Donna: According to charter CSC could play a role, but not as a mediator, however need to avoid possibility of forum-shopping CSC only customers Staffan: will take views back to DT M. Need to communicate concerns. Action Staffan: draft note to reflect concerns of DT C first for DT C Martin: Ensuring IANA Function Operator keeps up Service na service levels. Sidley view seems to be more in line with view DT M ( see page 6) Recommendation Document Format is for shorter set off recommendations. Action Bernie and Bart look at template to submit information and material Action staff: Send Doodle poll for call l on Friday 10 April.

1 0

Blog: ICANN's High Standards Recognized with Industry Achievements
by Grace Abuhamad April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, The blog below may be of interest to the CWG: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indus try-achievements ICANN's High Standards Recognized with Industry Achievements <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-ind ustry-achievements#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indu stry-achievements#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indu stry-achievements#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indu stry-achievements#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indu stry-achievements#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-s-high-standards-recognized-with-indu stry-achievements#> As Continuous Improvement Manager for ICANN's IANA department, my role is to help ensure that we meet our strategic objective of advancing organizational, technological and operational excellence. The idea of continuous improvement, a founding tenet of ICANN culture, is the commitment to achieving excellence with the understanding that processes and dynamics are constantly evolving. Our team is committed to demonstrating high standards of service and we strive to strengthen our commitment to stakeholders as we move forward together. We have several processes in place for the independent review of IANA functions' work and to ensure reliable, quality and efficient service in our various registration roles. Recently, several achievements have highlighted our department's dedication to these goals. Today we announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-02-en> that we have achieved the Service Organization Control (SOC) 3 certification, previously known as Systrust, of our Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Root Key Signing Key systems for the fifth consecutive year, and also successfully completed our SOC 2 Report, which evaluates key systems used to support IANA transaction processing functions. International accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducted all SOC audits, past and present. The SOC 3 and SOC 2 are part of a set of audits developed and managed jointly by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). Undergoing independent audits helps assure that we have the appropriate internal controls in place to meet availability, processing integrity and security service levels for the IANA functions. The audits are conducted annually and our team is constantly evaluating and updating our systems and controls. In November 2014, we released findings <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-17-en> from the IANA Functions Customer Service Survey. Ninety-three percent of respondents reported overall satisfaction with the quality of service delivered for all of theIANA functions. The survey was administered independently by Ebiquity, a global media, marketing and reputation consultancy. IANA functions customers who had used the services in the previous 12 months were invited to participate. This is the third year we have solicited user feedback, which we use to drive future process improvements. Read more about the survey findings <http://www.iana.org/reports/2014/customer-survey-20141217.pdf> [PDF, 968 KB]. In addition to these recent achievements, our department also received EFQM's "Committed to Excellence" certification, following an assessment conducted by a panel of three independent assessors in August 2013. Founded in 1989, the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) is the not-for-profit membership foundation that publishes the EFQM Excellence Model, a comprehensive management framework used by more than 30,000 organizations around the world. ICANN proactively engaged EFQM to perform the review and identify improvements using its model. Today, we are working to further enhance our performance and operations, within the EFQM framework, based on the feedback received during the assessment. ICANN embarked on a path toward operational excellence of the IANA functions over five years ago and our 2014 Service Organization Controls audit reports demonstrate our emphasis on having the appropriate controls in place for the IANA functions. Our commitment to continuous improvement remains a key priority for the organization.

1 0

Final Draft of Principles
by Lise Fuhr April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear All, As announced at the CWG conference call today, the latest draft of the Principles is hereby sent to the list. Please be aware that there is a deadline for the conclusion of the Principles on Friday 10th of April, and we have had several iterations on the document. As Martin Boyle mentioned in his email of March 24th , this is a compromise among many parties, so please have this in mind when reading. I resend the redlined version with comments and a clean version. If no objections are posted online by Friday April 10th , 12:00 UTC, the Principles will be considered as finalized and agreed upon by the CWG. Best regards, Lise

10 12

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #34 7 April
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #34 on 7 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893471 Action Items Action (Brenda): send calendar invites for all meetings through June (in batches so as to not overload email) Action (Chairs): Review and assess whether priority 2 are needed in order to respond to ICG request Action (Staff): add Chuck Gomes, Cheryl Landgon-Orr, Suzanne Woolf to DTF (completed) Action (all): send questions on mailing list by Thursday 13:00 UTC for Client Committee call Notes Jonathan sends apologies for this call 1. Logistics, Timetable & Planning * Next couple of weeks are essential for CWG work * Client Committee weekly call is on Thursday, so legal advice will be reviewed on that call. * DTs have deadline for submission on Friday, so the CWG plenary meeting on Thursday has been cancelled to allow for full dedication to DT work. CWG plenary sessions will pick up during the high intensity meetings on 13-14 April. * Plan for the high intensity meetings is to start around 11:00 UTC with three 2h sessions on Monday and two 2h sessions on Tuesday. * Document revision will be between 15-20 April, and public comment publication on 20 April Action (Brenda): send calendar invites for all meetings through June (in batches so as to not overload email) 2. Design Team Status & Discussion a. Template structure Each DT should aim to have a high level summary to include in the short form propoosal. For now, the group will continue to focus on Priority 1 issues for now. Action (Chairs): Review and assess whether priority 2 are needed in order to respond to ICG request b. DT Status DT-C on track and planning for call tomorrow DT-A will need to work on proposal with IANA team. Aiming for design principles DT-F will start working anyway, despite template not yet being approved Action (Staff): add Chuck Gomes, Cheryl Landgon-Orr, Suzanne Woolf to DTF DT-L has a new lead (Matthew Shears), since James Gannon has excused himself for the time being. DT-M has a final call on Friday. DT-O had Xavier Calvez on call. and sent the DT-O an itemization of IANA operational costs for ICANN. Group aims to present recommendations by Friday (perhaps even Thursday!). DT-N is proceeding apace and will likely have something for the deadline. DT-B, received the results of the survey of ccTLD managers on the need for an appeal mechanism for ccTLDs. The 'top line' result is that the response rate was extremely low, less than 30 responses from a community of over 240. c. CCWG Stress Testing Cheryl agreed to do this since she is lead on the CCWG for the Stress Tests Work Party. Drafts are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents d. Red Team Scope outlined in section 4 of draft. Comments/edits welcome. The work for Red Team will be drafted as committee of the whole with inclusion of the relevant stress tests as determined by Cheryl and her team. 3. Draft Transition Plan 3.0 * An appendix, including a glossary of acronyms and defined terms will be developed. * Section III starts with summary recommendations that may need to be reworded and/or changed based on the results of the DT work. * Throughout section III, highlighted areas indicate placeholders for high-level recommendations (details will be included in annex). * Section IV is dependent on the outcome of the DT work, but there are already areas where some DT information may be applicable. Staff have noted these areas, so please suggest text and look into this with your DT during DT meetings this week or through DT mailing lists. * Section IV includes a review of SAC 069 (complete, but needs to be incorporated into text) and of the relevant CCWG Stress Tests (outstanding Action item for Cheryl). 4. Status of Legal Advice Draft received from Sidley, but not yet discussed with them. This will be a subject for discussion on 13-14 April call. Action (all): send questions on mailing list by Thursday 13:00 UTC for Client Committee call 5. AOB Coordination call between CCWG and CWG was on Thursday. With holiday, not much update since, but there is a call again on Friday. Aim to finalize principles by Friday. 6. Closing Remarks

1 0

DT-A Notes, Recordings, Transcript | 7 April
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-A Meeting 7 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895881 Notes Actions Identify real processes Additional meeting to understand general objectives Schedule another meeting this week Objective: general, professional Service level Actual SLE not achievable before the meeting Best hope to have principles in before 10th April. Given state of conversation Chat Transcript Brenda Brewer: (4/7/2015 11:23) Welcome to the DT-A Meeting on 7 April elise gerich: (11:27) Hello - Elise here elise gerich: (11:28) will the audio work on adobe connect or do I also have to dial in on my phone? Kim Davies: (11:28) I just called the bridge, they said this call is not scheduled for another few hours Kim Davies: (11:29) "1pm Central" Brenda Brewer: (11:29) Elise, please test sound, it should work on Adobe. Brenda Brewer: (11:30) having op start recordings elise gerich: (11:31) ok - I am talking Bart Boswinkel: (11:31) Hi all On teh call elise gerich: (11:32) sound not working on adobe connect - for me to speak. I will debug as Kim speaks. elise gerich: (11:32) hearing is fine - speaking is not working elise gerich: (11:32) I will dial into the call Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:32) @EG - ok Jeffrey Eckhaus: (11:33) I am trying to join the call . is the passcode is DTA or DTM ? Brenda Brewer: (11:33) DTA Jeffrey Eckhaus: (11:33) thanks Jeffrey Eckhaus: (11:33) the invite had DTM elise gerich: (11:37) on the phone and hopefully can speak when it is appropriate elise gerich: (11:38) when we get to the question about the flowchart I would like to be in the queue to speak. thanks. Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:39) Elise will get to you in a few minutes Kim Davies: (11:50) Be mindful that other design teams are looking at the architecture between IANA, NTIA and Verisign, and that process will inform process changes that will flow into what SLAs/SLEs make sense Bart Boswinkel: (11:51) @Kim: +1 elise gerich: (11:52) <mailto:didp@icann.org> didp(a)icann.org is the email for requesting information that is not presently published today elise gerich: (11:54) Thanks for the offer to visit the office on Thursday, Apr 9th - however, that is the day of the root KSK key signing ceremony, so we are unable to entertain you on Thursday Paul Kane: (11:56) Don't we know it. The deadline has had me working 18 hours per day :-) Kim Davies: (11:58) Bernie: +1 Jeffrey Eckhaus: (12:01) need to drop off. thanks for listening Paul Kane: (12:05) Thanks all .... have a good eve elise gerich: (12:05) Thank you and bye Kim Davies: (12:05) This is great, thanks Bart Boswinkel: (12:05) Bye all

1 0

Fwd: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration
by Greg Shatan April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

My comments on the Sidley discussion draft are below. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration To: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Cc: "cwg-client(a)icann.org" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Sharon and All, Thank you for all your hard work. This is a very useful document. Here are my initial comments on the document: Page 5, Section I.A.4: The CWG needs to develop accountability mechanisms directly related to contract management and ICANN's behavior as a party. We can't shift this specific, tailored accountability responsibility to the CCWG. With ICANN (rather than "Contract Co.") entering into the contract, there is a danger of "the fox guarding the chicken coop" that needs to be controlled for. Page 6, Section 1.C.7(b): IRP should be defined the first time it occurs. Page 6, Section 1.D.2: The document states that "in the first instance, customers would seek to resolve issues directly with PTI and, only if unresolved, take the matter up to the CSC." This would be true of issues that individual customers were experiencing. However in the event of systemic issues (i.e., issues affecting many or all customers), I would expect that the CSC would be used to try and resolve issues in the first instance. Page 6, Section 1.D.3: I did not expect that the CSC would be the "escalating party" for stakeholders at each level of escalation. Rather, I expected/thought that at some level, a multistakeholder body would step into the escalation process. One of the reasons the multistakeholder model works, in my opinion, is that different stakeholder groups, each representing the interests of their stakeholders, tend to balance each other out and bring about the need for compromise and consensus. The corollary of this is that each "uni-stakeholder" group tends to act like an "interested party" and act as an advocacy group (because it needs to do so and because it was created to do so). The danger is that in creating a "uni-stakeholder" group with operational responsibilities, like the CSC, it may still tend to act like an advocate for its constituents, rather than acting in the greater good. In other words, the CSC runs the risk of being "captured" at birth, by the "customers." Given the likely makeup of the CSC, oversight over the CSC, as a uni-stakeholder body without internal checks and balances, is critically important. Page 7, Section E.1: The powers discussed here do not directly relate to oversight of the IANA Function. Instead, they focus entirely on oversight of the ICANN Board, which is not often directly involved in IANA matters. It's unclear how this "Multi-Stakeholder Community Organization" relates to our remit to deal with accountability for the IANA functions (but not general ICANN accountability). It's also unclear if this MSCO is the same as the "empowered Member Group" being created by the CCWG, or is a variation on or affiliate or subset of such empowered Member Group. Further, it is unclear whether this is the same thing as "statutory" members of ICANN or something different. Page 7-8, Section II,B & C: I think you should create a list of advantages and disadvantages of the Legal Separation Variant to parallel this list of advantages/disadvantages. It creates an odd imbalance to have this analysis of the Functional Separation Variant, but none for the Legal Separation Variant. Page 8, Section III.A.1(a): You state that an LLC "would not be a formally incorporated entity, but is a legally cognizable entity." While this is technically true, it may give the wrong impression. Specifically, although an LLC is not "formally incorporated," it is formally brought into being by filing formative documents with the state (very similar to a corporation). Thus the difference between "incorporation" and "formation." Page 9, Section III.A.2: In the "chapeau text," "alterative" should be "alternative." Page 11, Section III.D.4: You state that "if the SOs and ACs would themselves be ... designators of ICANN, they would need to form a legally cognizable entity." However, the SOs and ACs currently act as designators of the ICANN Board, and are not legally cognizable entities, to the best of my knowledge. Am I missing something? Page 11, Section III.E.1: These consequences of failure all seem fairly dramatic,and are some version of "firing" the offending party. Here, as elsewhere, I expect that actions short of firing would be more common. I would think that it is more likely that the consequence of most functional failures would be and agreed-to remedial action taken by PTI/IANA, likely with heightened oversight by ICANN/CSC/some multistakeholder thing. Page 12, Section III.F.3: You raise a question about the "fiduciary obligations" of the "person/body doing the compelling." Based on the prior sentence, this "person/body" would appear to be an independent arbitrator. I'm no expert on arbitration, but I would think that the duties (fiduciary or otherwise) of arbitrators are fairly well settled. Am I missing something? Page 14, Section IV.A.2: You state that "[a]n accountability mechanism for reviewing ICANN's policy-making decisions related to the IANA functions" is an area "of dependency and need for integration between CWG and CCWG. It's unclear whether you expect/think/recommend that this mechanism to be created by the CCWG (in which case it is likely to be a general purpose mechanism and not one specifically designed for IANA-related purposes) or the CWG. If it is the latter, we don't have any real work done to create such a mechanism. If it's the former, I'm not sure how much further ahead the CCWG is on such a mechanism, and I don't know whether a general purpose mechanism will be "fit for purpose" when it comes to reviewing IANA-related decisions. What do you think the path forward here is? I look forward to hearing from you and discussing this with you. I also look forward to the comments of my fellow CWG participants (which will be on the main email list for the CWG). Best regards, Greg On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG > requested Sidley’s input on: the internal accountability/hybrid model with > two closely related variants: accountability mechanism with legal > separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation. We > look forward to discussing. > > > > Best regards, > > Sharon > > *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* > Partner > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Fwd: Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models
by Seun Ojedeji April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Hi Greg, FWIW a response to my omments from client committee(legal firm) would be required. However, their formal +1 from them on Milton's response would also suffice as well ;-) Thanks On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Response to email just sent. > > Greg > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> > Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition > Models > To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> > Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > > > Seun > > > > A quick observation; the legal separation option does not seem to include > advantages/disadvantages like the functional separation. > > MM: Actually it does. The discussion draft makes it clear that the legal > separation is used as the benchmark, and then compared to functional > separation. Thus, the “advantages” of functional separation are the > “disadvantages” of legal separation, and the “disadvantages” of functional > separation are the “advantages” of legal separation. > > After reviewing these pros and cons, I think the only substantive > advantage of functional separation is this one: > > “Avoids the need to create another layer of governance and accountability > at the IANA level and associated complexity; the focus can be on ICANN > governance and accountability.” > > But this alleged advantage is a mirage. It would be nice to avoid > governance problems. But of course, the easiest way to avoid complexity and > governance would be to have no accountability at all. > > This ‘disadvantage’ of legal separation is really its chief advantage. The > reforms of ICANN governance and accountability that come from the CCWG will > be reforms oriented to its policy making process, not IANA operations. > ICANN is dominated by the policy making process for domain names and the > administration of its contracts with registries and registrars – it > accounts for 95% of its budget. IANA is a tiny part of ICANN’s overall > enterprise. Internal reforms of ICANN governance and accountability are > going to be focused on making sure that the policies passed by the board > reflect the preferences of its stakeholder groups. Unless there are > governance and accountability reforms _*specifically targeting IANA > operations*_ the general ICANN CCWG process will do nothing for IANA. And > if those specific governance and accountability reforms for IANA are put > into place in an internal solution – voila – you have the same additional > “complexity” and additional layers of governance that you have in the legal > separation. So there is really no gain in simplicity from an internal > option. > > Let’s bite the bullet and do it right. Legal separation is a requirement. > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* > > *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

DT-M Notes, Recordings, Transcript | 7 April
by Brenda Brewer April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting 7 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895208 Action Items Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone Maintainer. Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue applicable legal resources that may be available. Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would make it imcompatible with DT-C approach Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC Action item (staff): accept other edits made Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved, the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes) Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes. Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint. Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to Friday's meeting Notes Notes 7 April DT M * Consider adding a paragraph that explains what has been updated / changed compared to existing procedures instead of showing changes line by line. Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone Maintainer. * Legal redress via court should remain an option - that is always an option, not precluded by these procedures. Does this need to be made explicit? Possible footnote on other legal remedies that may be pursued? * All of the escalation procedures should have timeframes associated with them and automatically moves to the next step if not resolved within the timeframe indicated. This is intended to be able to identify how long a certain task would take. It may be difficult as it may depend on when the request is made and issue at hand. Consider including indicative timelines? Already addressed on page 6 ('what is the expected time line') so no further action needed. Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue applicable legal resources that may be available. * Keep ombudsman option optional 3. a. Discuss Stephan's input * Currently IANA team allows anyone to send in complaint - proposed changes would make it more narrow. However, it may be inconsistent with DT-C if it is not limited to direct customers? consider making step 2 of customer service complaint resolution process only available to direct customers should it indeed be an issue? Issues could potentially be raised by non-customers via liaisons in CSC or ombudsman for step 2? Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would make it imcompatible with DT-C approach Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC Action item (staff): accept other edits made 3. b. Implementation Paper * Circulated to ensure consistency with DT M work (is intended to be part of DT C work) * Reference to 30 days may need to be updated as it has been taken out from DT M work 4. Annex Z a. Adding CCWG accountability steps such as spilling the Board and/or separating the IANA functions from ICANN? b. Adding triggers for escalation steps where needed? c. Including a step for initiating an RFP? * Is format / approach with regard to RFP in scope for DT M? May not be feasible in any case before upcoming deadline. * Are there any triggers that need to be added? Triggers are in the process itself - customer will look for resolution until 'ticket' is closed. May not need further triggers? Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved, the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes) Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes. 5. Discuss remaining two questions from the DT-M scoping document: c) What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) have in escalating IANA naming services problems? * As all others should have standing to raise issues. However, should these groups have standing for step 2 or should they follow non-direct customer path. Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint. f) What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA name services issues? * Can use complaint process. Should also have access to Problem Management Escalation Process? Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to Friday's meeting Next meeting DT M: 12:00-13:30 UTC | 10 April

1 0