- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

High Intensity Meetings on 13-14 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Hi all, We will be having two days of high intensity meetings on Monday 13 and Tuesday 14 April next week. The times and frequency of these meetings will be discussed on the CWG call. In our last CWG high intensity weekend, we held 4 calls (2 per day). The overview calendar that Brenda sent last week is reattached, and the meetings page on the Wiki is available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Hello all, Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda

7 6

Vol. 3: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

See https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions Vol. 3: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb 243d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-US&s=linkedin&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fblog%2Fvol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions&title=Vol.%2 03%3A%20Update%20on%20IANA%20Stewardship%20Discussions%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra -52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/551bbf756e99e77b/2&frommenu=1&uid=551bbf75974b354d&ct= 1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion s#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion s#> <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2 43d6d89&source=tbx32-300&lng=en-US&s=sinaweibo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o rg%2Fnews%2Fblog%2Fvol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions&title=Vol.%2 03%3A%20Update%20on%20IANA%20Stewardship%20Discussions%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra -52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/551bbf756e99e77b/3&frommenu=1&uid=551bbf75888b5d45&ct= 1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion s#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion s#> Download PDF version of Vol. 3: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions here. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-31m ar15-en.pdf> [PDF, 507 KB] ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANAStewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe. In brief * The Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) and Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) held face-to-face meetings in Istanbul, Turkey, during the week of 23 March 2015 with a common goal: the successful transition of theIANA functions stewardship to the global multistakeholder community. * Both CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability plan to make draft proposals available for Public Comment in the lead-up to ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> in Buenos Aires, 21-25 June 2015. * As work on the IANA Stewardship Transition continues to build momentum, a number of communities are beginning to submit formal statements and recommendations to the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability. An overview of CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship meetings * The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> )met in Istanbul on 23 and 24 March <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> . There were 57 CCWG participants – 42 onsite and 15 using remote participation tools, three advisors to the CCWG <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors> and two representatives from Sidley Austin <http://www.sidley.com/> , one of the two legal firms engaged by CCWG-Accountability. * CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> met on 26 and 27 March <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890325> , with 43 onsite and remote CWG participants, including 18 who had participated in the CWG-Accountability meeting earlier in the week. Sidley Austin was represented, as they were also engaged to provide legal advice to CWG-Stewardship. * On 25 March, the Co-Chairs of both groups met to discuss the progress, objectives of their work, and how the groups could help inform each other's work. * In addition to the archived notes, transcripts and recordings of both meetings, the Co-Chairs of both groups published Statements regarding the meetings: > * CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs' Statement > <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en> > * CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs' Statement > <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-29-en> * ICANN published video interviews with CCWG Co-Chair, Thomas Rickert <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE> , and with the CWG Co-Chairs <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1M-ldKSjgM> . CCWG-Accountability progress in Istanbul ICANN Mission, Vision and Value statement * There was general agreement that ICANN's commitment to its core values, as stated in its Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> , needed strengthening. * There was recognition that after the IANA Stewardship Transition occurs, the accountability and transparency mechanisms provided by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/aoc-en> ) between ICANN and the U.S. Government should be brought into ICANN's Bylaws. The group discussed the need to rewrite some of the original AoC text, rather than incorporate it as a single unchanged block, noting it would be important to raise community awareness of the rewriting process of this key commitment between ICANN and the global community. Empowering the community * The group discussed new mechanisms to empower the community in ICANN's decision-making processes. In particular, there was general convergence on the need to enable the community to: > * Recall (or "spill") ICANN's Board of Directors > * Approve or prevent changes to ICANN's Bylaws, Mission and Core Values > * Reject Board decisions on ICANN's Strategic Plan and budget (where the Board > has failed to appropriately consider community input) * It was recognized that, while it was clearly important that the ICANN Board be accountable to the community, it was also essential for the community itself to meet high standards of accountability. Introducing Fundamental ("Golden") Bylaws * The CCWG-Accountability proposed to introduce Fundamental Bylaws (previously referred to as "Golden" Bylaws), in ICANN's revised Bylaws that would add additional robustness to key provisions. These Fundamental Bylaws should be changeable, but any change should require a very high standard of community approval. * Four key topics were proposed as potential new Fundamental Bylaws: > * ICANN's Mission (some provisions also identified for possible elevation to > ICANN's Articles of Incorporation > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en> ) > * Enhanced Independent Review Process > * The power to veto Bylaw changes > * New community powers ("Empowering the community" above) Independent Review Process * There was general agreement to enhance ICANN's existing Independent Review Process <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountabil ity%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&a pi=v2> [PDF, 74 KB] rather than create a new process. Possible enhancements include making the process more accessible and affordable and having a standing panel (to help with consistency of decision making) that produces binding outcomes. ICANN's Mission and Core Values would guide the decisions. General discussion * There was debate about the accountability mechanisms to be proposed as Work Stream 1 –ICANN accountability processes that need to be in place or agreed to before the IANAStewardship Transition can occur – and broad agreement to continue developing proposals on six core themes: > * Revisions to the mission, commitments and core values > * Enhancement of the independent review process > * Establishing fundamental bylaws > * Mechanisms for community empowerment > * Transcription of the AoC provisions and reviews into the Bylaws > * Enhancements to reconsideration processes What comes next? * All recommendations by CCWG-Accountability will be subjected to stress tests against contingencies already identified by the group <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> . * The CCWG-Accountability will refine its recommendations and expects to put its draft out for public comment within the next few weeks. Based on input from the wider community, the CCWG-Accountability expects to hold further deliberations during ICANN 53. * Given the potential significant impact to ICANN and the global community of the proposals CCWG-Accountability is considering, the group is discussing the need to hold dual public comment processes, to ensure its recommendations are given the broadest consideration by the community. CWG-Stewardship comes closer to converging on a single solution in Istanbul Reducing the possible number of potential structures/models on the table * Entering the meeting, the CWG-Stewardship was considering seven possible models of what a post-NTIA IANA stewardship could look like: two external solutions (Contract Co. and Trust); two internal solutions (Accountability mechanisms and Trust); and three hybrid/integrated models (IANA subsidiary/ "affiliate" of ICANN, IANA shared services agreements and Standalone IANAentity). Following preliminary legal advice presented by Sidley Austin <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/LegalOverview_26M arch.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1427359362000&api=v2> [PPTX, 853 KB] and subsequent discussion amongst CWG-Stewardship members of the pros and cons of the different models, there was agreement to actively investigate the following two models: Accountability mechanisms with functional separation and Accountability mechanisms with legal separation (also called the IANA subsidiary or "affiliate" of ICANN). > * The remaining five models were not entirely dismissed and could be revived > if either or both of the above models prove inadequate. Design Teams * Eight of the proposed fourteen Design Teams <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams> had been active before the Istanbul meeting, with a fifteenth, on the IANA budget, being added on the final day of the meeting. The Design Teams reported back to the group on their progress. Detailed information on the Design Teams and their activities can be found in the documents marked "DT." <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894123> A summary of the status of the Design Teams as of 27 March is available on Slide seven. <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG_Stewardship_H andouts_04.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 1.2 MB] What comes next? * Design Teams aim to complete their work by 10 April for review by CWG-Stewardship. Accepted work will be inserted in the appropriate section of the draft names proposal. * CWG-Stewardship has revised its upcoming timeline slightly and extended the Public Comment period for its draft proposal from 21 to 30 days. See "Upcoming Key Dates" below. * Three versions of the group's final proposal will be developed. One version will be submitted to theIANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) for consideration. A second, more detailed version will explain the reasoning behind choices in the proposal and provide more information about the implementation of the post-NTIA model for the names component of IANA stewardship. A third, short version, produced with the assistance of ICANN communications staff, will be made available as a summary for members of the community not involved with the process on a day-to-day level. Inter-community correspondence * On 19 March, a group of registries submitted <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002385.html> a guidance document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/IANA%20Stewardshi p%20Transition%20-%20Guidance%2019%20March%202015.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 99 KB] to CWG-Stewardship aimed at delivering the most minimal, simple and lightweight structures possible while meeting the needs of stakeholders and avoiding the creation of new, unnecessary structures and complexities. * On 22 March, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP <https://www.nro.net/news/final-proposal-crisp> ) Team Co-Chairsrequested <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002444.html> that the CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs communicate with them directly and in a timely manner on developments that might affect the Numbers community, and not wait for the final submission of the names proposal to the ICG. * Also on 22 March, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG <http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/rysg> ) submitted <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002417.html> a statement <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/RySG%20IANA%20Sta tement%203%2022%202015%20%28Final%29.docx?api=v2> [DOCX, 34 KB] to CWG-Stewardship. Among other issues, the statement recommended: avoid creating new accountability concerns by minimizing the creation of new structures; identifying processes for improvements to the performance of the IANA functions and oversight structures; and identifying stable funding streams for the IANA functions from fees paid to ICANN by gTLDs and ccTLDs. * On 26 March, the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> ) Council Chairs wrote <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/holland-et-al-to-lise-et-al-26mar15-en.pdf> [PDF, 52 KB] to the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs to report that theccNSO intended to have the IANA and accountability proposals presented at the next face-to-face meeting of the ccNSO at ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires and, if the ccTLDs present at the meeting express support for the proposals, the ccNSO Council would then make a decision on whether to adopt the proposals. Therefore, the earliest the ccNSO could make a decision is 21-25 June 2015. * On 26 March, a German position paper <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894734/German%20Position %20Paper%20IANA%20transition%200326%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=14 27447800000&api=v2> [PDF, 26 KB] on the IANA Stewardship Transition, developed via a multistakeholder process and backed by the German government, was sent <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002471.html> to the CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs. Among its recommendations, the paper suggests that there must be binding rules implemented that protect ICANN and the IANA functions from possible threats toICANN's existence (such as insolvency) before the transition occurs. The paper also recommends it should remain possible to separate the technical execution of the IANA functions from ICANN. * On 26 March, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO <http://www.gao.gov/> ) requested <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-March/001 939.html> a teleconference with the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability on 7 or 8 April 2015. GAO is reviewing NTIA's proposed transition of IANA Stewardship in response to a request by the Chairs of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce <http://energycommerce.house.gov/> and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee <http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/communications-and-technology > . Upcoming key dates 31 Mar 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #18 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 6:00 UTC 2 Apr 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #33 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 7 Apr 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #19 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 19:00UTC 10 Apr 2015 Deadline for CWG-Stewardship Design Teams to provide content 13-14 Apr 2015 CWG-Stewardship intensive working days 14 Apr 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #20 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 12:00UTC 20 Apr 2015 Public Comment period for CWG-Stewardship draft proposal begins 21 Apr 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #21 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 6:00UTC 20 May 2015 Public Comment period for CWG-Stewardship draft proposal ends 30 May 2015 CWG-Stewardship High-Intensity Weekend 8 Jun 2015 CWG-Stewardship delivers names proposal to ICANN SOs & ACs 18-19 Jun 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires 25 Jun 2015 CWG-Stewardship delivers names proposal to ICG <https://www.ianacg.org/> Latest documents and drafts 24 Mar 2015 CWG-Stewardship - Overview Handout from Istanbul Face-to-Face meeting <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/CWG_Stewardship_H andouts_04.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 1.2 MB] 27 Mar 2015 CCWG-Accountability - Sidley Preliminary Draft Responses to CCWG Legal Sub-team Questionnaire <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Sidley%20Prelimin ary%20Draft%20Responses%20to%20CCWG%20Legal%20Sub-team%20Questionnaire.pdf?v ersion=1&modificationDate=1427711507000&api=v2> [PDF, 821 KB] CCWG-Accountability - Adler Colvin Preliminary Responses to CCWG Legal Sub-team <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Adler%20Colvin%20 Preliminary%20Responses%20%2800663636xA3536%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDat e=1427711471000&api=v2> [PDF, 122 KB] 18 Mar 2015 CWG- Stewardship - Draft Transition Plan V2.2.1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.2.1.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1426689336000&ap i=v2> [DOCX, 168 KB] 15 Mar 2015 CWG-Stewardship - Sidley Preliminary Draft Response to legal questions <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52894123/Sidley%20Prelimin ary%20Draft%20Response%20%2803-18-15%29.pdf?api=v2> [PDF, 155 KB] IANA Stewardship Transition in the news 25 Mar 2015Temi importanti per i proprietari di marchi <http://www.insidemarketing.it/temi-importanti-per-proprietari-di-marchi_584 9/> , Inside Marketing [IT] 16 Mar 2015IANA機能の監督権限の移管について <https://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/governance/iana.html> , JPNIC [JP] 9 Mar 2015Mutations dans la gouvernance de l'internet dans le monde: Les Etats africains invités à faire des propositions <http://www.lesoleil.sn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45240:m utations-dans-la-gouvernance-de-linternet-dans-le-monde--les-etats-africains -invites-a-faire-des-propositions&catid=195:medias&Itemid=109> , Le Soleil [FR] 8 Mar 2015"互联网+"：法律政策怎么加？ <http://www.eeo.com.cn/2015/0308/273340.shtml> , 经济观察网 [CN] You can play a role in IANA's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 31 March 2015 This update can also be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-03-31 -en

3 2

DT-O link for notes, recordings and transcript for 6 April call
by Brenda Brewer April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 06 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895647 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895647%20> Action Items Action (Xavier): Share information with Design Team by Tuesday 14:00 UTC. Action (Chuck): Share information on breakout of IANA costs with CWG Co-Chairs before taking any additional steps. Action (Brenda): Schedule a call on Wednesday or Thursday (look back at previous Doodle poll and Xavier's schedule) Notes Discussion with Xavier There are as many different costs as there are purposes. Asking the question is sometimes more complicated that answering it. Important to understand the context. 1. Is Finance working on a current breakout of IANA costs? When will that be available? Yes, draft is ready. The question asked in pulling this together was "how much does the IANA Function cost ICANN today?". DT-O will be 'test audience' for the Another call would be useful. Question by email are welcome to allow for preparation. The costs are not for a specific customer (such as the the ccTLDs). What is provided is the total cost for operating the IANA Function. Action (Xavier): Share information with Design Team by Tuesday 14:00 UTC. Action (Chuck): Share information on breakout of IANA costs with CWG Co-Chairs before taking any additional steps. Action (Brenda): Schedule a call on Wednesday or Thursday (look back at previous Doodle poll and Xavier's schedule) 2. Identify all costs (operational and recurring) shown in the budget that pertain to IANA function - this includes items converted in other parts of the budget and that are shared with other departments. What budget are we referring to? FY15 and FY16 The document that will answer Q1 will probably answer most of Q2 and all of Q3. There is an IANA department (dedicated resources), and there are other non-IANA department resources that contribute to the IANA Function operation. Need to be clear about information needed. Maybe asking specific questions after a solution is agreed to is a better path forward. Questions will be answered in writing. Spell out the requests for information. The requests need to be very clear. Xavier is willing to help make the questions specific. Next steps for DT-O Edit: The IANA Function's comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function Next step is to have a meeting on Wednesday or Thursday (with Xavier) Group to submit questions in writing on mailing list by Wednesday (so that Xavier can prepare) Kind Regards, Brenda

2 1

draft 3.0 comments
by Andrew Sullivan April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear colleagues, I have read the 3.0 draft of the transition plan. I have a comment. In section IV.C item 2, it says, "Delegation authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole." This way of stating it is slightly confusing to me (speaking as a DNS operator). I can work it out, but I'd suggest that it'd be clearer to say "Authority for delegations from the root zone ceases to function, in part or in whole." At least, I think that's what's meant. Best regards, A (as ever, speaking for myself only) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Agenda for Meeting #34 & Draft v.3.0
by Grace Abuhamad April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear all, Agenda for Meeting #34 on Tuesday 7 April at 17:00 UTC 1. Logistics, Timetable & Planning 2. Design Team Status & Discussion a. Template structure b. DT Status c. CCWG Stress Testing d. Red Team 3. Draft Transition Plan 3.0 4. Status of Legal Advice (send questions on mailing list by Thursday for Client Committee call) 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Draft v.3.0 Attached is draft v.3.0 for your review. Please note: * 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). Upcoming Meetings DT-O Meeting #3 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895647> Monday 6 April19:00 - 20:30 DT-M Meeting #6 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895208> Tuesday 7 April12:00 - 13:30 Meeting #34 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/pages/editpage.action?pageId=52893471> Tuesday 7 April17:00 - 19:00 DT-N Meeting #1Wednesday 8 April18:00 - 19:00 Intensive Working Days (13 & 14 April) Best, Grace

1 0

FW: Transition Models for Further Consideration
by Grace Abuhamad April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear all, Sidley Austin sent through their work on the transition models as discussed in Istanbul. Please see attached. Best, Grace From: <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:51 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Holly Gregory <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas(a)sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com>, Tennie Tam <tennie.tam(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com> Subject: Transition Models for Further Consideration Dear All, Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG requested Sidley¹s 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. **************************************************************************** ************************

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for DT-O Meeting 3 April
by Brenda Brewer April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 03 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895337 Action Items Action (Chuck): send draft text list or Grace for inclusion in latest version Action (Grace): relay budget issue to DT-L. Outstanding Actions Action (James): need citation to contract requirement for budget separation ---> Can someone volunteer to take over this action in James' absence? Thanks Cheryl! Notes DT-O meeting #2 | 3 April at 13:00 UTC Outstanding Actions Action (James): need citation to contract requirement for budget separation ---> Can someone volunteer to take over this action in James' absence? Thanks Cheryl! Completed Actions: * Action (Grace): Transfer DT-O request for Finance staff member to join next DT-O cal * Action (Marika): edit the document and send around clean/redlined version * Action (Grace): look at email exchange between Chuck and James and pull questions for Finance * Action (Brenda): Doodle poll for Thursday and Friday this week and next week (to select 2 or 3 meetings before 10 April. Please do 30 min intervals so that we can try to find at least one 90 min call slot. Notes: Mary on audio-only This meeting is focused on edits on scoping document by section: Background / Current State Contract requires IANA services to be separated from policy.. COMPLETE (Cheryl): go through the contract for a citation --> The Contract is silent on the question of budget separation Edit the text to reflect the community expectations Issues Identified & Rationale for Changes, if any DT will consider all the current estimated information available as part of the approved FY15 and draft FY16 budget Do not include itemization of FY15 and FY16 in the issues section (leave it in the recommendations section) --> Note that feasibility of itemization will be something for Finance to discuss. Edit: ..."outcomes from DT-O may be found useful to contribute to submissions to the comments on budget" If DT-O drafts comments for budget, it would be after 10 April (after the deadline for DT work to be submitted) Whether the DT-O or the CWG makes budget comments, we'll cross that bridge when/if we get there Add a note about submitting outcome to CCWG in Issues section Proposed Recommendations No edits to #1 #2 and #3 have been removed. why? because they pre-suppose an outcome. How do we address this? Edit: keep #2 and #3 but reword to include as future work of DT-O after the CWG and ICG have decided on a solution and proposal. Edit to #4 Action (Chuck): send draft text list or Grace for inclusion in latest version Add a #1 that recommends that all IANA costs be fully transparent (high level point) Budget breaks down to different levels * Strategic Objectives * Goals * Portfolios * Projects Action (Grace): relay budget issue to DT-L. Next Call: Monday, 06 April 19:00 - 20:30 UTC Kind Regards, Brenda

2 1

FYI: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap
by Jaap Akkerhuis April 2, 2015

April 2, 2015

Of some interest <https://ourinternet.org/#publications/icann-bridging-the-trust-gap>. jaap

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA DT-M Meeting #5 | 02 April
by Brenda Brewer April 2, 2015

April 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-M Meeting #5 - 2 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895090 Action Items * * ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies of flow charts for edit. Else staff can regenrate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms * ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman * ACTION: staff to update Step 2, 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator * ACTION: Staffan to take Step 2 - Escalation to CSC back to DT-C - CSC for them to discuss staffing, etc. * ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG] * ACTION: staff to schedule next call. Notes - Review of Scoping document and six questions; qA,B,D,E covered in existing draft; qC,F not discussed yet - perhaps modify qC for ccTLDs that do not belong to ccNSO Review of draft DT-M - 2 April 2015.doc - Summary, page 1 seemed acceptable - Annex X - Root Zone Emergency Process - Roles defined in flowcharts will need to be updated to reflect general roles and not specific entities ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies for edit. Else staff can regenerate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms - Emergency Process - no changes proposed to process itself; Stepp by Step descriptions will need RZM and IFO edits as well. - not clear how long current Emergency Procedures take; needed from an SLE perspective; how long each step would take; 4 Hours is window; difficult to be presciptive, depends on issue type (case by case basis); work with VRSN and NTIA - Kim from IANA best contact re: SLAs/SLEs - Annex Y - IANA Customer Service Complaint Process - Basically divided into two steps based on feedback from IANA - Combines processes discussed in Istanbul with existing procedures; eliminated CEO step (interim) - Step 1 - internal to IANA Functions Operator; begin with email to <mailto:escaaltion@iana.org> escalation(a)iana.org; if not closed, escalation to Functions Liaison; then Program Mgr; options to escalate to Ombudsman - remainder of text is what is listed on <http://iana.org/> iana.org, with slight adjustments to terminology - Should c) be retitled to IANA Functions Operator Ombudsman? - why Ombudsman and not CSC? Ombudsman not quick in resolution. CSC is involved, idea to use Ombudsman as a mediator prior to CSC. DT so far, Ombudsman is an optional path ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman - for Complaints, ack in 1 Biz day; if needs to be escalated to Kim, then 2 Biz days to resolve issue; ACK to requestor; Resolve of if needed escalate to Elise; Expectation set with requestor - Step 2 - Use of CSC; if issue not resolved in step 1; Implementation issues for this process; staffing, notification; cost for Mediator - NTIA were to act as external "mediator"; external party needs to be knowledgeable of IANA operations; Cost not so much issue, but knowledge important; Benefit of NTIA to offer external service; CSC would replace role that NTIA plays now.2B is new step different from NTIA; professional mediator - 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator - supported - 2C - Problem Mgmt process - optional - CWG Istanbul; stewardship role held in affiliated company or which ever agreed model; point is that Steward needs to be informed; Mgmt of ICANN need to be informed - Discussion - by escalation to Step 2 for CSC, conceivably by day 3 -5 CSC could be involved; question is how CSC can manage this short runway ACTION: Staffan to take this back to DT-C - CSC Annex Z - IANA Problem Mgmt. - new procedure - May require more details; how much implementation details are required? Collaboration with DT-C on how the CSC could handle this process - What triggers one step to the next - May need to add steps RE: what CCWG comes up with accountability mechanisms. Complete escalation path to accountability mechanisms as necessary. - Need to determine "periodic audits" as to who will perform them; refer to DT-N - trigger to find new contractor (RFP) as a step prior to "spilling the board"; DTM if such an option should be an escalation step. Yet to be determined by CCWG if that is an option. CWG can recommend a "bylaw" that when x happens, that RFP be invoked...to that effect. - Step 6 "Use of bylaws mechanisims" - Refer to CCWG?? Fundamental bylaw ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG] Scope Questions: a) What can an individual registry operator do if IANA service is not provided in a timely and/or satisfactory manner (e.g., if SLEs are not met)? b) What can be done if there are multiple instances of untimely and or unsatisfactory IANA naming services? 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? d) What role should the CSC play in the escalation process for IANA name services problems? e) If IANA naming services problems cannot be solved at the CSC level, how and to whom should the problem be escalated? f) What role, if any, do the other SO/ACs have in escalating IANA name services issues?

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA DT-C Meeting #5 | 02 April
by Brenda Brewer April 2, 2015

April 2, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-C Meeting #5 - 2 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895501 Action Items ACTION: Bernie, as DT-A staff lead, will take this issue to DT-A ACTION: Determine what expertise may be required to sit on CSC Notes Discussion of CWG Call 2 Apr: - presentation/status of Design Teams - mention of relationship of DT-C with DT-M - Template for DT output - DT-C Development of Charter - DTs due on 10 Apr, High Intensity work on 13,14 Apr 1) DT-A IANA SLE - Discussion of DT-A SLE documentation and understand input from IANA - DT-A Standalone work? Discussion with IANA for any agreed upon SLAs - Is DT-A the negotiator for SLAs? Should be result of negotiation between RyOs and IANA - Assumption that future SLAs negotiated between CSC and IANA - DT-A should perhaps include content on how future Service Levels be addressed; Current DT-C report does have content on how to address Service Levels going forward; ACTION: Bernie, as DT-A staff lead, will take this issue to DT-A 2) DT-M Escalation - Keep what we have - CWC and IANA in cases of remediation - Three parallel processes; will be included in proposal - 1st process - Emergency - 2nd process Customer Svc Complain Process - 3rd escalation to CSC - Specify in detail the triggers for escalation - Reference to Kurts work, ID of triggers is more detailed; illustrative and negotiated with IANA as to how that would work. - CSC version will take escalation to a certain point; if CSC believes of poor performance - Two process overlapping; 1) something gone wrong 2) service complaint resolution process (CSC mediating) 3) escalation, but not to whom, but CSC used as a mediator; Issue with committee of four worthy people having to perform mediation is a big task. - Remedial action is missing (Annex Z, point 1) - Ensure DT-M, this is not a part of CSC. CSC be made aware of the issue; provide instruction and plan to be delivered within "x" timeframe. - Assuming CSC is minimal organization; purely technical ops; still might require effort to handle escalations - Still unclear if there will be an MRT - Caution as to not to tailor task to fit organization. If CSC not a part of escalation, then where it will it go? - MB vision of CSC day to day monitoring process; if threshold breach, would alert ccNSO/GNSO as necessary. Use the SOs to trigger certain accountability mechanisms. 3) DT-N Periodic Review of IANA Function - DT-N has not really started; 1st meeting will be scheduled early next week - SD to integrate DT-C concepts into DT-N where appropriate - DT-N assumption that it will be a multi-stakholder body that would cover the review - How should review team be formed and constituted? - Concern - CSC primary role to monitor performance; unsure if CSC will be well equipped to do that from a resourcing perspective & work output perspective. This effort is yet to be sized. Periodic review could be significant amount of work; MB agrees that CSC not perform peridoc review - Role of CSC provides information, perhaps into AoC type of review process that could be multi-stakeholder; flag as way forwards; SF agrees with approach; some piece of the periodic reviews does need to be MS. 4) DT-C Document: - DT-C to develop Charter; seeking appropriate template - Should include bit on how escalation process flows through CSC - Discussion of Changes in latest version ACTION: Determine what expertise may be required to sit on CSC Final draft for Monday, call on Tuesday to wrap it up.

1 0