- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-C Meeting 20 March
by Brenda Brewer March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-C - 20 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892955 Action Items Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion Action staff: Send out Doodle for Monday afternoon (at latest closure 1 before close of the call) Notes 1. All DT members present + Kim Davies ( IANA ) 2. Prep Monday 6 pm UTC ( delivery time discussion paper DTC ) 3. Document Discussion * . GOOGLE DOC Staffan's changes, reflect discussion with ccTLDs ove rlast days * . Suggestion to go over text, in particular insertions from SSAC 069 Changes section a Kim: the way changes are presented is artefact from IANA contract 1.1. is superset of 1.2 ( Changes in area 1.1 automatically result in changes in area 1.2.) Point 2. Substantial changes for TLD Kim suggest text for Google text 1. Changes an appointed registry makes: 1.1 Changes to the root zone file (technical changes published in the DNS) 1.2 Changes to the root zone database (updates to technical and contact data published on the IANA website and via WHOIS protocols)2. Changes of registry appointments (i.e. delegation of new TLDs, transfer of existing TLDs, removing delegation of existing TLDs) Donna: capture in table is what is currently situation and what needs to change as result of transition See table C2.9.a.b Martin: Caution about involvement of the CSC (third parties) in sensitive area of ccTLD delegations and redelgations Also similar concern with regard to gTLD delegation and redelgation As suggested by Donna: no role for CSC in delegation and redelegation of TLDs Q: will it be challenged during the meeting? Note Potential overlap with Authorization: No role of CSC with regard to Authorization, only lead to delays - Maybe only role in MONITORING of Authorization. * . Current reporting: - Monthly reporting only seen by NTIA (confidential) ( DNSES key rollover, changes Question: how would CSC deal with confidential reports. In some cases ( issues with regard to individual) Public reports: * IETF report * Affidavit report * Dashboard ( root zone changes report) * . Point 3.2 (SSAC 069 report). In the course of regular business of IANA need correct licenses to conduct work. Pro-active certification, implies third party, understand Sarah: Government related issues, and should be treated as such Defer issue certification to DT OFAc licensing etc * . CSC discussion Sentences on cusotmers in Composition section and internal method of working Sentences, on SLE/SLA are referred in table. Role of CSC is to monitor SLE/SLA. Include Placeholder language. Martin: CSC could organise discussion. Primary role to get information out of IANA, and making it available to wider community if reviewing at SLE/SLA, initiate discussion. Sarah: SLE are set, and then somebody needs to check against these criteria. For monitoring CSC members look at their members Often forgotten communicating with broader community * . Kim: Does group have a sense of scope what falls under Naming function? Not just root zone also includes: .INT and .ARPA And auxiliary functions, IDN Table repository * . Question: If CSC does not take these on, who will? In curren tversion 2.1 of proposal .INT and IDN Table are included. David Conrad reading through document .ARPA addressed in IETF proposal .INT and IDN-> Specific DT s * . Kurt: CSC would be vehicle for changing SLA CSC on review Stephanie, there is another DT for this Should be role for the CSC, ensure it does not fall in the cracks CSC and appeals mechanism Strike section, part of letter' Breach of IFO functions Map against Kurt did. Donna: porposed text questions some of the text . Do GAP analysis between the two. Note also DT M (escalation), and need to coordinate Kurt: suggest to look at Donna's document Escalation process is complex to design, and implement Real escalation process needs to be improved over time Include Placeholder Breach by IFO Overview of Consensus elements Donna present document What are key-points what CSC would do. Includes mapping to sections of template DT C ( section A-J) Includes and builds on Sarah's table Area not covered C (Stephanie) and D (Martin) Template Marika does not provide structure to tell story Stephanie: Add specific Placeholders section, to show waiting for further input Use Kurt's org chart Staffan: Good way to present in Istanbul Area's it may be challenged. Escalation Martin: Possible they might be challenged. Is current table, key of what we are doing. Current escalation process, is internal in CSC, External Escalation is once issue for other DT Kurt: Suggest to use overview as starting point for deliverable. Get sense of group core is right Donna: work through document to seek agreement, Section A: Agreement Section B: Include monitoring the IANA and ensuring (agreed) Also suggested Oversight of the performance Section C: Restucture to reflect: Engage in cooperative communication ir order to ... Section D: Agreed Section E: change to IANA Naming Function, possibly broader then direct customer Kim: more often than annual. Issue: intermediating between IETF and community on implementation Emerging technologies and services and periodic reviews as separate point Monthly meetings to include emerging technologies Annual meeting, is getting people together, and consider Agreement to split in two bullets Suggested txt: The CSC will engage with IANA, the direct customers of the IANA naming function, and the ICANN community to discuss emerging technologies and issues that might impact the provision of IANA services. . (E2-> F) The CSC shall hold an annual meeting with the IANA Functions Operator, the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions, and the ICANN community to discuss the performance of the IANA Naming functions and any changes to the services that are underway or forthcoming. Section F: rather call it operation/addressing problems, Identify that CSC may get involved b=in between meetings, second four stage process ( STRAWMAN), it is multi-stage escalation process is recommend, Needs to evolve over time (evolutionary approach) Section G: The CSC could be initial point of context (not escalation) The reality of process today: current escalation is not always need, What is expectation if IANA has tried to address issue. Mediation point There has to be some criteria/ parameters around complaints. Mindful if complaint was already Remove initial, Strike last sentence (The CSC .... and its processes) Include reference to ccNSO/GNSO when relevant Section H: Different numbers in different proposals Why is SSAC member? Proposal is minimum composition In other document reference to direct customers Include minimal composition However keep as small as possible - Registry operator are full of technical/operator capable people, SSAC could be asked as for advise - Go forward with lean configuration - CSC correspond with larger groups Makes sense to have communication with SSAC (liaison role) useful, in particular when isse beyond one group purview Alternative approach look at principles Section I: Be clear what purpose of additionals and liaisons are: and not leave it up to CSC to appoint. At same time additional people may be useful Reference in Underlyimng document to liaison as "temporary". Note in other context permanent Attach liaisons to CSC from GAC, ALAC, non-contracted part GNSO Section J: Include marker, refer to mechanisms identified in CCWG Accountability Stephanie suggest additional bullet: The CSC shall facilitate public comment periods and other community participation opportunities in the event that changes are proposed that would affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions. Agreed Google doc, background for DT C, proceeed working on overview document Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion Action staff: Send out Dodole for Monday afternoon ( at latets closure 1 before close of the call)

1 0

Provisional High Intensity Meeting on 1-2 April
by Grace Abuhamad March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Dear all, On our Tuesday call this week, the Chairs presented the idea of holding a high intensity meeting period over the 1-2 April. Brenda has sent calendar notices with a "tentative" note since these meetings are not yet confirmed. We would like however, for you to be aware of the possibility of these meetings taking place and clearing your diaries if possible. We would expect to leave Istanbul with enough momentum to push us through to the public comment, but additional calls/meetings may be needed to complete the work. I've copied the dates below (they are also on the Wiki). (PROVISIONAL) High Intensity Meeting (1-2 April) Meeting #34Meeting #35Meeting #36Meeting #37Wednesday 1 April Thursday 2 April11:00 - 13:0017:00 - 19:0011:00 - 13:0017:00 - 19:00 Best, Grace

1 0

Client Committee Mailing List
by Greg Shatan March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

All, We have modified our approach to the Client Committee email list. The only members of the list are now the Client Committee (Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon and myself) and the Sidley Austin team, with Grace Abuhamad providing staff support. The remaining ICANN participants who were members of the list (Samantha Eisner and Theresa Swinehart) have been moved to observer status. John Jeffrey was previously removed from the mailing list at his request after the counsel selection process concluded. Kevin Espinola of Jones Day was also previously removed. If any participants in the CWG wish to be added to the Client Committee mailing list as observers, please let Grace Abuhamad know. Greg Shatan

3 4

IANA Department Operations Budget Forecast FY2016
by James Gannon March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Might be of informative value to some discussions. Taken from: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-portfoli… [cid:image001.jpg@01D06283.990BA760] James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

2 1

CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Prepare for Face-to-Face Meetings in Istanbul
by Grace Abuhamad March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

To view the original post, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Prepare for Face-to-Face Meetings in Istanbul <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%2Fannouncement-2015-03-19-en&title=CCWG-Accountability%20and%20CWG -Stewardship%20Prepare%20for%20Face-to-Face%20Meetings%20in%20Istanbul%20-%2 0ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/550b3b335f9136cf/2&frommenu=1&uid=550b 3b339362e2fc&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#> <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%2Fannouncement-2015-03-19-en&title=CCWG-Accountability%20and%20CWG -Stewardship%20Prepare%20for%20Face-to-Face%20Meetings%20in%20Istanbul%20-%2 0ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d89/-/-/550b3b335f9136cf/3&frommenu=1&uid=550b 3b3361562673&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#> The CCWG-Accountability and the CWG-Stewardship will each hold a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul, Turkey the week of 23-27 March 2015. The CWG and CCWG leaders coordinated the location, agreeing that holding their respective two-day meetings consecutively was the best way to apply resources and manage joint efforts. These decisive meetings are scheduled to help reinforce each group's respective project plans and timelines, both anticipating drafts for public comment in April. Meetings are open to observers1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#foot1> through Adobe Connect, and the working sessions will be recorded and transcribed. CCWG-Accountability Schedule: 23 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+F2F&iso=20150323T07&p1=107&ah=9> ) 24 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+F2F&iso=20150324T07&p1=107&ah=9> ) Virtual Meeting Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Provisional Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/pAonAw 25 March Travel Day Joint CWG-CCWG co-Chairs Coordination Meetings CWG-Stewardship Schedule: 26 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+F2F&iso=20150326T07&p1=107&ah=9> ) 27 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC (time converter <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+F2F&iso=20150327T07&p1=107&ah=9> ) Virtual Meeting Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana Provisional Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/1QonAw For more information on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes visit: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability. 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en#ref1> As a reminder, these face-to-face meetings are working meetings for the CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship. Like all working meetings, participation is limited to members and participants.

1 0

For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan
by Marika Konings March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions: * Edits to address the points raised by Andrew * Edits to address the comments from Brenden * Edits to clarify some areas, fix typos and fix a couple of places where we still had references to NTIA and/or contractor in the proposed language. To facilitate your review, the previous redlines have been accepted and only those changes that were made to this version are in redline. Of course, that should not prevent you from making any comments, edits or questions on any other parts of the document. Best regards, Marika

5 8

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #30 19 March
by Brenda Brewer March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #30 - 19 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892457 Action Items Action (all): review proposal 2.2.1 and provide input Action (all): identify if there are any gaps that are currently not addressed or identified by design teams Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1) Action (Avri): CCWG issues for the CWG - identify whether there are any additional items (see also https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn…) Action: Add Red Team to the list in the next iternation as DT O. Action: Design Teams to review guidance document and see if there are elements that could help inform deliberations. Notes Note: roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect 1. Opening Remarks Timeline to be assessed after F2F meeting in Istanbul - target is to publish draft proposal for public comment by early April. 2. Proposal 2.2.1 Minor revisions made to address comments received. Work in progress - any input welcome, including orientation of DT in proposal itself. Some working assumptions have been made in this document, but these will be updated to reflect the proposed recommendations by the DT once agreed by the CWG. 3. Design Teams Input to be provided by Monday at 18.00 UTC for consideration in Istanbul. Draft template has been provided to facilitate content development by design teams. Expression of interest for priority 2 DT will be recorded, but those DT are not active yet. DT-L Update Progressing at pace. Work is being phased - working on phase 1 (looking at existing documents) and 2 (building on existing documents and define what may be needed). Two DIDP requests have been filed for documents that are currently referenced in the IANA Functions Contract. May be linkage with DT G concerning intellectual property. DT-A Update The DT hopes to publish its recommendations over the weekend. No further updates at this stage. DT-B Update Survey will go out soon to ccTLD community. No further updates at this stage. DT-C Update Document expected to be circulated by Monday's deadline. DT-D Update Excellent exchanges on the email list. DT now to capture those conversations in the content template in view of being able to share it with the CWG by Monday's deadline. DT-E Update Initial review of SAC 69 prepared by staff to be circulated to CWG. This may be similar to red team assignment or this work can be used by the red team as a starting point? DT-F Update A few volunteers have come forward, Rudi Vansnick has volunteered to be the lead. Grace working with DT on next steps. DT-M Update Guidance paper circulated by Chris Disspain contains a number of suggestions in relation to escalation mechanisms. DT M is using that as a kick-off point. DT-N Update Question of what is being reviewed has still not been clarified - is it just the SOW or the IANA Function as a whole. Dependent to a certain extent on the SOW, but work could already commence on those areas that are not dependent on the SOW. DT may also want to review the guidance document as it may provide a starting point. Should there be another team that would work on the review of the IANA Function? DT to work on scope and chairs to consider whether it should be one or two design team - shouldn't prevent DT to work on SOW review as currently defined in the draft proposal. See latest draft of scoping template at <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc… Action: Add Red Team to the list in the next iternation as DT O. Action: Design Teams to review guidance document and see if there are elements that could help inform deliberations. 4. Update from Client Committee (Greg) Sidley has provided first draft response to 12 questions that were provided in the legal scoping document which has been circulated to the client committee and the CWG. Client committee will meet later today. Work is currently being done by Sidley, hence 'quietness' on the client committee mailing list. Substantive discussion expected to take place in Istanbul. 5. F2F Agenda and Logistics Draft agenda has been circulated - will be work in progress as output of DT is processes as well as possible additional input from Sidley. Calendar invites, including RP details will be circulated shortly. 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks No meeting scheduled for next Tuesday.

1 0

Updated revision of Integrated model - work in progress
by Avri Doria March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Hi, Brenden, Matt and I have taken the comments we received and reworked the Integrated model proposal somewhat. This is still as work in progress, but this revision is far enough along that we wanted to open it up to wider review and comment. Our expectation is that we will take a snapshot of the proposal just before the Istanbul meeting so that there is something fixed to talk about. It can be found at <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZpCjh4hoRJ1CaYpw30f3zB0gogGa7ZS1eKyum-r…> Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

Agenda for Meeting on 19 March at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the 19 March meeting. In addition, I've attached a draft agenda for the F2F which will be posted on the Wiki shortly. The full list of CWG in person participants is available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Proposed Agenda 19/3: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Proposal 2.2.1 3. Design Teams A. Updates from DT leads B. Remarks C. 'To be determined' areas 4. Update from Client Committee (Greg) 5. F2F Agenda and Logistics (Grace) 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

4 3

FW: Preparation for Istanbul -- Sidley Response to Questions in Legal Scoping Document
by Jonathan Robinson March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

All, Please see attached for Sidley preliminary draft response which we will pick up with them in the Client Committee meeting today @ 14:00 UTC and thereafter of course in Istanbul. Jonathan From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com] Sent: 19 March 2015 05:45 To: 'Jonathan Robinson'; Greg Shatan; Lise Fuhr; Maarten Simon Subject: Preparation for Istanbul -- Sidley Response to Questions in Legal Scoping Document Jonathan, Lise, Maarten and Greg, Attached please find Sidley’s preliminary draft response to the CWG Scoping Document Legal Questions. Please note that this is our initial response to the questions, is based on our investigation and diligence to date, and was prepared under tight time constraints so as to be ready for the Istanbul meetings. We tried to follow your questions to the extent possible, but the amount of time or length of response given to a particular topic should not be inferred to represent any endorsement or preference. Rather, this should be viewed as a work in progress that will undergo continued iterations as we gain a deeper understanding of the issues, challenges and priorities presented by the transition. We look forward to your feedback and review. Please feel free to forward this document as appropriate. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA HOFHEIMER Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://www.sidley.com/> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

2 1