- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

A liaison from the Board to CWG
by John Poole Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html ) It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added? At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily. In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise. Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue. Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now. Best regards, John Poole

10 15

Venue for F2F -- Istanbul, Turkey | 26-27 March 2015
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Dear all, We would like to confirm the dates and location for the next face-to-face meeting which has been scheduled to align with deliverables. Dates: 26-27 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) Please note that this will also be the venue for the CCWG face-to-face meeting on 23-24 March, which was scheduled to comply with the CCWG's respective project plan and timeline. CWG-CCWG leaderships agreed in a coordination meeting that holding their respective face-to-face meetings in the same location was the best way to use resources, and also achieve the desired degree of coordination. In light of the groups' geographical statistics and given the limited time window available for planning, the Co-Chairs considered locations that would be most efficient for membership travel. It was determined that Europe would be a desirable landing point. Co-chairs have worked with ICANN staff to determine a location for these separate meetings. Accessibility (international hubs) was used as a key search criteria. The meeting only being a few weeks away and the groups being significantly large and having quite specific technical requirements for remote participation, etc., the number of options was narrowed to a limited number of cities and venues able to accommodate the meetings. Availability of accommodation was also factored in. Mindful of the groups' diversity and to ensure maximum attendance in the meetings, the Co-Chairs decided that Istanbul would be the most suitable location. The Co-Chairs reached this decision based on, among other things, an analysis of visa procedures: Turkey delivers evisas for most countries. In addition, Istanbul is a major hub for flights, and a doorway to Asia and Europe. Please note that the meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG-stewardship meetings held to date. The working session will also be recorded and transcribed. Only the 19 members of the CWG are eligible for travel funding from ICANN. Alternates are eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and they are approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at the own expense. Please confirm your in-person presence by sending an RSVP to grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org by Monday, 2 March at 23:59 UTC. We thank you for your understanding of the planning challenges and encourage you to contact ICANN staff should you have any questions or need any assistance with visa procedures. Best, Grace

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Essay of Interest
by Greg Shatan Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

I think the essay referenced below is of equal interest to our Working Group. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:55 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Essay of Interest To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Colleagues This essay, by Jack Goldsmith of Harvard University, may be of interest: http://www.hoover.org/research/tricky-issue-severing-us-control-over-icann Best Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq(a)redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- *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

Reminder: Meeting at 17:00 UTC on 24 February
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Dear all, As a reminder, please note that we have our call (today) 24 February at 17:00 UTC: Proposed Agenda 23/2: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Finalization of Work Methods 3. Integrated Model 4. Discussion on Proposed Design Teams 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name
by Greg Shatan Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

*Name and Summary Description*: IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name. The Number Community has proposed that the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name be transferred to an independent entity, such as the IETF Trust. This Design Team will review this proposal and provide a report back to the CWG discussing issues and pros and cons of this proposal and providing a written draft recommendation to the CWG regarding how to deal with this proposal. The Number Community has also stated that it would be preferable if certain data associated with the IANA were in the public domain. The team would examine this proposal, and would also determine what if any other IPR is involved in the NTIA-IANA relationship. The team would provide a written draft recommendation regarding these points in a second deliverable. *Detailed Description: *The proposal submitted by CRISP on behalf of the Numbers Community contains the following paragraph: With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The ICG has issued a question to the Protocol Parameters Community, asking (in essence) whether this proposal was acceptable. The Protocol Parameters Community responded that this was not inconsistent with their proposal. The ICG also issued a question to the IETF Trust, asking whether the IETF would be willing to take on this role. The IETF Trust responded that it would be willing to do so. As of today, the ICG has not issued a question to the CWG regarding this proposal. This proposal may raise various operational and legal concerns. It does not appear that the CRISP Team, the ICG or the IETF Trust have examined these concerns. This Design Team will review this proposal with regard to how it could work and with regard to operational and legal concerns, and will provide a report back to the CWG discussing issues and pros and cons of this proposal and providing a draft recommendation to the CWG regarding how to deal with this proposal. The Number Community has also stated that it would be preferable if certain data associated with the IANA were in the public domain. The team would examine this proposal, and would also determine what if any other IPR is involved in the NTIA-IANA relationship. The team would provide a written draft recommendation regarding these points in a second deliverable. Greg *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/>*

4 4

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG
by John Poole Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Greg: I agree with Milton Mueller --"In reality there is no such thing as a turn-key IANA transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going to have to be described in the final proposal and implemented over a period of months." Greg, you are the only person I have heard use the term "turn-key" or like words. Nowhere has Larry Strickling said or indicated the proposal when submitted must be "turn-key"--if so, the CWG needs to tell Larry Strickling to send his US government lawyers here now because we are going to draft ALL the documents now and we need the US government's input now for "approved FINAL Drafts" before even ICG has had a chance to do its initial review! If that is really what you and Jonathan and Lise think is needed or required after re-reading Milton Mueller's apt comments below, but are hesitant about contacting Larry Strickling and requesting the necessary participation by US government lawyers in order to have "approved FINAL drafts," I will be glad to do that for you and the CWG. However, I am also confident that Mr. Strickling's response will be that it is not necessary that the proposal be "turn-key" and that someone must have misunderstood what he was saying. CWG is already very late in submitting its proposal to the ICG--the CWG proposal needs no more detail than the other proposals that have already been submitted, see the comment by Seun Ojedeji <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001903.html> on point. In fact, you will note that at our last meeting that it was discussed how the voluminous detail in the draft proposal completed for earlier phases of the CWG work will now have to be reduced and summarized to be similar in scope to what was submitted by Protocols and Numbers. Best regards, John Poole from Milton Mueller: > > For those of you not familiar with the idiom, turn-key means a solution > that is 100% ready to operate upon arrival, like turning a key in the > ignition of a new car and driving away in it. > > I would caution you against accepting this dictum, Greg. This ?turn-key? > fantasy is really just one of the subtle ways of stacking the deck against > proposals that aren?t what they had in mind. It is also a product of a kind > of unjustified panic that the 2016 Presidential elections in the US might > abort the transition. In reality there is no such thing as a turn-key IANA > transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going to have to be > described in the final proposal and implemented over a period of months. > And a transition that is already underway in 2015 will not be aborted if it > has widespread public support. > > As for the NTIA, they are going into public hearings in a few days and > they are in no position to suddenly invent or impose arbitrary limitations > or restrictions on what is an acceptable proposal. They have set forth > their criteria publicly and that is what the community at large and the ICG > will use as the basis for evaluation. Let us have no more talk, based on > hallway whispers, about new demands or conditions regarding what the NTIA > wants. If it is not in the publicly available criteria, it isn?t a factor. > > Milton L. Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
by John Poole Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

James: Under the external Trust model, ICANN is replaceable, but only by Trustees, representative of, and acting on behalf of the entire global multistakeholder community, but only then under very limited circumstances in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument (and even then subject to judicial review). But you have made my previous point exactly--I do not buy the argument that IETF or RIRs somehow should be elevated above others in the global multistakeholder community, or should be empowered alone to make that decision unilaterally. The IANA functions belong to the entire global multistakeholder community, not just IETF or RIRs. Best regards, John Poole On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > Perhaps I am showing my ignorance of a nuance here but I would have > thought it was the other way around, ICANN is replaceable, the IETF and > RIRs will walk away and select a new IANA functions operator outside of > ICANN if necessary, or at least that has been my understanding and reading > of their ICG submissions? > > Very open to correction by more educated people than myself here! > > On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:53, John Poole <jp1(a)expri.com> wrote: > > If IETF or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose not to > participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is irreplaceable. > ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject to extortionate > demands from any source. > > >

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
by John Poole Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear Avri: Thank you for your most recent posting (below) about the so-called "Integrated" model--not only do I concur with your own critique of that model ("I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do"--Avri) which saves me a lot of time in this response, I also have further objections: 1. It is by far the most complex model proposed thus far--exceeding anything proposed in either of the 2 external models (Contract Co or Trust) or the 2 internal models pre-ICANN 52. This is counter to comments made at ICANN 52 (I listened to them all) as well as many comments to the original draft proposal as being "too complex." Because of its complexity, the Integrated model raises numerous legal as well as operational issues and possibly unforeseen problems that will need to be first addressed by groups outside of this CWG--some of those have already been identified in this mail thread-*-e.g.*, IETF *et al.* 2. Beyond the question of legal advisability of separating IANA from ICANN, or the ramifications of doing so upon ICANN's policy making and regulatory authority which I raised last week, I object to putting ICANN in the potential position where it could be held "hostage" by IANA functions controlled by third parties, or the IANA functions could potentially be "captured," by a select group of stakeholders to the exclusion of the global multistakeholder community whose interests (*i.e.,* the Global Public Interest) the ICANN Board of Directors is ultimately supposed to represent (see Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…>). The IANA department is a small department (11 people) fulfilling a very important, necessary role in the coordination of the DNS, and apparently doing it quite well <http://www.internetassignednumbersauthority.org/reports/2014/customer-surve…>. ICANN is the IANA functions operator on behalf of the entire global multistakeholder community, not just the names, numbers, or protocols communities. ICANN should thus remain the IANA functions operator post-transition, as it is pre-transition, without the threat of unilateral take-over by select self-interested groups. 3. I now have it on good authority that neither NTIA nor ICANN have taken "off the table" any of the four models (2 external, 2 internal) which were "on the table" pre-ICANN 52. I frankly do not understand why anyone would draft a 5th proposal that contains a potentially "disastrous thing to do" in the opinion of one or more of its own authors, and yet we are spending precious time on this at the CWG meeting tomorrow. Are we just filling time and trying to look "busy" while awaiting procurement of independent legal counsel? Has this CWG really become that dysfunctional? Or are we now reduced to making dangerous or "disastrous" compromises ("integrated" proposals) in a feeble attempt to reach "consensus?" 4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA? 5. Finally the ultimate question that every model should answer to the clear satisfaction of the CWG before being proposed to ICG--What happens* "in extremis" *(ICANN insolvency, hostile capture of IANA or ICANN, etc.)? >From my perspective, it looks like the Integrated model offers nothing but chaos in such a situation. I know you are an experienced policy wonk and will not take personally any of the above (but in fact welcome my straightforward comments). I personally value your presence and many contributions to the work of this CWG. Best regards, John Poole http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001868.html Avri Doria avri at acm.org Mon Feb 23 04:02:22 UTC 2015 *While I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do, it remains possible in this model as was foreordained by the ICG. I do hope the Integrated model* helps make that less likely. but if any of the 3 operational communities wants to leave, they could. avri * and it is not mine though I am representing it, at least over the weekend - i am one of three authors*

4 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
by John Poole Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Avri: Thank you for your reply (below). I do not agree that ICG "precluded any solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA." In addition, if IETF or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose not to participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is irreplaceable. ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject to extortionate demands from any source. Best regards, John Poole Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:50:39 -0500 > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model. > Message-ID: <54EB5A5F.1090400(a)acm.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 23-Feb-15 10:34, John Poole wrote: > > > > 4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by > > the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA? > > By dividing the topic as they did, they precluded any solution that > focused on maintaining a single IANA. By creating a framework that > precluded integrated models, they fore ordained, in my opinion, that an > operational split in IANA would persist at the conceptual level. > > Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to > maintain, a contract that says they could split IANA with 6 months > notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will > be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues. > I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen. > > avri >

3 2

InternetNZ response to CWG questions
by Jordan Carter Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Hi there Please find attached our response to the questions. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0