- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda for 23/2 (Meeting #23)
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for Meeting #23 on 23 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

5 4

Updated Integrated model - docs
by Avri Doria Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Hi, I preparation for tomorrow's discussions I have extracted & attached pdf snapshots from the current documents. They are all works in progress, the explanatory notes are first drafts. They are all open to comment. The Integrated Model Description https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5… Discussion of accountability in the model https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTF… Post Transition IANA Community Board discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9y… avri

1 0

Fwd: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Alan Barrett <apb(a)cequrux.com> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG > Date: February 20, 2015 at 3:40:03 PM PST > To: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > > The numbers community has made the following response to the > question asked by the ICG: > > ----- Forwarded message from Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> ----- > > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:33:57 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG > > Dear Alissa and the ICG, > > We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community > on 9 Feb 2015 > <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>: > >> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the >> transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these >> aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers >> and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals >> to reconcile them?> > > We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the > numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given below. > > * It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA > trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use > of IANA Numbering Services in the future, even if the IANA > Numbering Services Operator is changed from ICANN to some other > operator, or if different communities choose different IANA > operators in the future. > > * In order to meet that expectation, it is the preference of > the Internet Number Community that the mark and the name be > transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering > Services Operator. > > * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable > option, provided this is supported by the IETF community, and > the IETF Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only > option, and the numbers community is open to consider other > solutions which work for other affected parties. > > This reflects the discussions in the number resources community on this > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list archived at: > > Question from the ICG > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/subject.html > > To summarize: The numbers proposal does not set a "MUST" condition to > transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust or to any other specific > entity, and the IETF proposal does not say it will oppose transfer of > the mark and domain to the IETF Trust, so we do not observe any > incompatibilities. From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we > observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF > further support the position that there is no conflict. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Correction: Proposed agenda for 24/2 (Meeting #23)
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Oh! Thank you Alan! The date is incorrect The meeting is on Tuesday 24 February at 17:00 UTC. My sincere apologies for the confusion, Grace From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:53 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, "Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed agenda for 23/2 (Meeting #23) Is this meeting today or tomorrow? Calendar invite was for tomorrow - 24 Feb. And agenda page lists BOTH dates - https://community.icann.org/x/OAYnAw. Perhaps confusion is that it is meeting # 23. Alan At 23/02/2015 10:19 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > Dear all, > > Here is the proposed agenda for Meeting #23 on 23 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 > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Regisrtrar Responses to the CWG Questions posed to the Community
by Graeme Bunton Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Please find attached responses from the Registrar community to the 9 questions posed in the discussion document. Note that this is not official RrSG position, but an analgamation of thoughts from a number of different Registrars and should be considered directional, not definitive. Graeme -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

1 0

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

Feb. 23, 2015

Thanks Avri. Forgive me if this was already discussed by I haven’t been able to keep up on this very well. · Has this approach been vetted with the protocol and numbers communities? · What does it mean that “ICANN establishes SLAs/MoU with Post Transition IANA”? Why would ICANN be involved in this? · With regard to the overall status of the IANA functions operator, I understand the need for parity between the three organizations, but when it comes to each of their specific functions, I don’t see the value of parity. For example, couldn’t parity become a problem with regard to issues related to the naming functions from a naming community point of view? · Without in any way criticizing the proposed approach, isn’t the new IANA board a new architectural feature? · Has any thought been put into the source of funding? · Who would have MOUs with the Post Transition IANA? · In the ICANN subsidiary, shared services and free-standing diagrams, why is ICANN shown as one of three elements of the Post Transition IANA Board? I appreciate the thought that has gone into this. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:09 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model. Hi, As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I have been working on a model that attempts to integrate solutions to some of the various sets of concerns by those favoring internal models and those preferring external models while trying to make the model simpler and more accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider community. During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about this model and have received, and worked through, a number of comments on the open drive draft document, which we announced on the list. The working draft, which is still a work in progress and remains open for comment can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5… I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc as of today. We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3 meeting. Or anywhere else that is appropriate. We are also working on drafts to document the means by which this model responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to speak those on list and during the meeting. In the draft we present three possible configurations for the model. The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page 6) is the preferred configuration, as it offers the most accountability for the least amount of change or complexity. We would also be interested to see how these models fare under the stress testing - we have not done that in any focused way yet, though we have kept those tests in mind. It should be noted that this model would require a minimal amount of accommodation by the Protocols and Number communities, but believe that this accommodation while not disturbing their current model in any significant way would make IANA more accountable to them as well. Thanks avri

9 22

FW: Richard Hill Responses to CWG-Stewardship Questions
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear all, Below are Richard Hill's responses to the questions posed in the Discussion Document. Best, Grace On 2/23/15 4:22 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Dear Grace, > >If I understand correctly, I can send to you comments that you will >transmit >to CWG-Stewardship. I refer to the discussion document for ICANN52 in >Singapore, which was attached to the E-Mail at: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001669.html > > >That document poses some questions, for which I provide my responses >below. > >1. Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen >(Please provide the reasons for your answer)? > >A: Only if adequate separation and accountability are in place. I >associate >with the comments made by Jordan Carter at: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001685.html > >And with the comments made by Milton Mueller at: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001779.html > >2. Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA >operator without the benefit of external oversight? > >A: No. Again, I associate with the comments cited above, and I refer to >the >JNC submission at: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html > >3. Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions, >have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable? > >A: Yes, for what concerns names. See the JNC submission cited above. > >4. What does functional separation of IANA from ICANN mean to you? >(this is not referring to having another operator than ICANN performing >the >IANA functions but rather the internal separation between ICANN and IANA >in >the context where ICANN is the IANA operator) > >A: I'm not convinced that functional separation is possible under the >existing ICANN Bylaws. However, the "Contract Co." approach could result >in >appropriate functional separation if it is correctly implemented, for >example if Contract Co. is a Swiss non-profit association with appropriate >membership. > >5. Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from ICANN >under the current arrangements (internal separation)? > >A: Yes, because of the role of NTIA and the existing IANA functions >contract. An external oversight role must persist after the transition. > >6. In considering the key factors (such as security and stability, ease >of separating the IANA function from ICANN, quality of services, >accountability mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition >proposals what importance would you give to the ability to separate IANA >from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors? > >A: Separability is the key factor. > >7. Given the IANA functions could be separated from ICANN do you >believe it would be important for the community to obtain from ICANN on an >annual basis the costs for operating IANA including overhead costs? > >A: Yes. > >o Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with >address and protocol functions? > >A: Yes. > >8. Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to selecting a new >operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN policy role (should ICANN >determine that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how could it >ensure >that the new operator would accept this)? > >A: If the post-transition legal and contractual framework is correct, >there >would be no unforeseen impacts. The new IANA operator would faithfully >implement ICANN's policy decisions as it does now. > >9. Are there other transition models which the CWG should be exploring? > >I refer to the JNC submission cited under question 2 above. > >Thanks and best, >Richard >

1 0

Update on the Integrated model.
by Avri Doria Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Hi, As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I have been working on a model that attempts to integrate solutions to some of the various sets of concerns by those favoring internal models and those preferring external models while trying to make the model simpler and more accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider community. During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about this model and have received, and worked through, a number of comments on the open drive draft document, which we announced on the list. The working draft, which is still a work in progress and remains open for comment can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5… I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc as of today. We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3 meeting. Or anywhere else that is appropriate. We are also working on drafts to document the means by which this model responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to speak those on list and during the meeting. In the draft we present three possible configurations for the model. The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page 6) is the preferred configuration, as it offers the most accountability for the least amount of change or complexity. We would also be interested to see how these models fare under the stress testing - we have not done that in any focused way yet, though we have kept those tests in mind. It should be noted that this model would require a minimal amount of accommodation by the Protocols and Number communities, but believe that this accommodation while not disturbing their current model in any significant way would make IANA more accountable to them as well. Thanks avri

5 12

Upcoming Meetings
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

Dear all, As was discussed on the call Thursday, the CWG-Stewardship will be meeting twice weekly going forward. The schedule will be as follows: * Tuesdays at 17:00 UTC * Thursdays at 11:00 UTC Brenda is in the process of scheduling the calls and will send calendar notices shortly. Also, she is updating the Wiki meeting page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings Best, Grace

3 2

CWG - Working Method and Design Teams
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

All, As per our discussions at our meeting this week regarding working methods please find attached the following documents: * Draft Working methods * Draft Design team Guidelines Subject to revision based on experience and any input from the CWG, we will work with these methods & guidelines in the first instance. We expect to get going with one or more design teams as soon as next week and look forward to working with you on these. Thanks, Jonathan & Lise

1 0