- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Ianaplan] IANA Function IPR; IETF Trust Willingness to Hold
by Seun Ojedeji Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

Hi, This could be useful info for names as it considers that aspect of its proposal Cheers! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Leslie & Marc, In response to the question from the ICG to the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015 asked the IETF Trust its opinion on whether it would be willing to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name. On 19 February the Trustees voted on the following: Are you willing for the IETF Trust to make the following statement: In accordance with Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement the IETF Trust would be willing to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name. I am pleased to report that the Trustees approved that motion. The IETF Trust Agreement is located here: <http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Trust-Agreement-Amended-and- Restated-02-20-2014.pdf> Best regards, Tobias Chair IETF Trust _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

US Senate Hearings on "Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance"
by Greg Shatan Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Hearings have now been announced for February 25. Those announced as testifying are Fadi Chehade, Larry Strickling and David Gross (partner in the law firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding and ex-Department of State). http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id… Greg

1 0

Strickling Blog Post TODAY on IANA Transition and Accountability
by Greg Shatan Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Stakeholders Continue Historic Work on Internet DNS Transition at ICANN Singapore Meeting February 19, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholders-continue-historic-work-intern et-dns-transition-icann-singapore-meeting Last week, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held its 52nd meeting in Singapore, where the global multistakeholder community continued progress on a proposal to transition the United States role related to the Internet Domain Name System. I was pleased to see the amount of energy and professionalism exhibited by the nearly 1800 participants at the ICANN meeting. The Internet's stakeholders are driving this transition and are demonstrating that businesses, technical experts, and civil society groups are best equipped to set the future direction of the Internet. Under this multistakeholder model, no one party can control the Internet or impose its will. And that's what's enabled the Internet to flourish and evolve into this global medium that has torn down barriers to free speech and fueled economic growth and innovation. It is so important that we get this transition right. If it doesn't take place, we will embolden authoritarian regimes to seek greater government control of the Internet or to threaten to fragment the Internet, which would result in a global patchwork of regulations and rules that stifle the free flow of information. Now that we are nearing the one-year anniversary of our announcement, it is important to take stock of where this transition process stands. Stakeholders have organized two major work streams to develop the overall plan: one group is focused on the specifics of the IANA functions and the second is addressing questions of the overall accountability of ICANN to the global community of Internet stakeholders. In the first track, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), representing more than a dozen Internet stakeholder communities, is developing proposals for each of the three primary IANA functions - protocol parameters, numbering, and domain names. Two of the three stakeholder groups have already finished their draft proposals: the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, and the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which worked collaboratively in developing the numbering proposal. The third group, the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on the naming related functions, continues to deliberate on how best to assure effective and accountable oversight of these naming functions in NTIA's absence. Once a consolidated proposal has achieved broad community support, the ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA. In the second track, stakeholders are working on a proposal to enhance ICANN's accountability to the global Internet community in the absence of the contractual relationship with NTIA. While it started later than the IANA transition process, the Accountability working group is making considerable progress. It's important that the two tracks remain in sync. We will only consider a coordinated and complete transition plan. While in Singapore, I participated in meetings and discussions with ICANN, other governments and the stakeholder community with respect to the transition. NTIA also continued to represent the U. S. at the meetings of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee. In these discussions, I posed several questions for stakeholders to consider. I want to ensure that any proposal developed by the stakeholder community meets the conditions NTIA outlined last March, including: supporting and enhancing the multistakeholder model; maintaining the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System; meeting the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintaining the openness of the Internet. In addition, I want to ensure that our role is not replaced by a government or intergovernmental organization. As both groups continue their work, any new process proposed must be tested to ensure that it actually works. The results will help inform our review of the final transition proposal. As for timing, both groups are aiming to deliver a transition plan to us in the summer. While September 2015 has been a target date, because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires, we have the flexibility to extend the contract if the community needs more time to develop the best plan possible. The Internet community is undertaking truly historic work at a pivotal moment in time. I thank them for their tireless dedication to this effort. The outcome of this process will impact the way the Internet is governed for years to come.

1 0

NTIA Periodic Report on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

All: This was published by the NTIA on February 11 (but deals with progress up to January 31). Greg http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2015/report-transition-stewardship-internet-… Report on the Transition of the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions Topics/Subtopics: - IANA functions <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/iana-functions> - Domain Name System <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/domain-name-system> February 11, 2015 The attached report provides background on the Internet domain name system (DNS) and NTIA’s role, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, NTIA’s call for a transition proposal, status of the multi-stakeholder community’s efforts in response, and next steps. The report covers activities through January 31, 2015. NTIA will update this report on a quarterly basis.

1 0

CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

To view the original announcement, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a two-hour working session<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday. In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder community.1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#foot1> Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft proposal. The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the CWG-Stewardship created a Discussion Document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc…> [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail on Thursday. The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015 to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>) for transmission to the group. Looking Ahead The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress. With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt of legal advice, as it did during the Webinars on 3 February<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656>. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability As agreed to in their Joint Statement<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232471>on 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done. With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective progress of the CWG-Stewardship. Work to Date The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a working meeting at ICANN 51<https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en>on 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the group. On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the publication of the draft proposal<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicCo…> [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 – 6 December, the CWG hosted three public webinars<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823496> to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular during an intensive work weekend on 10-11 January<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232482>. As part of the outcome, the group began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully considered. These models were presented in two public webinars<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> on 3 February and in a Discussion Document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc…> [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN 52 in Singapore. The next CWG-Stewardship working meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 – 27 March 2015. Composition The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: * 47 Asia/Asia Pacific * 36 Europe * 31 North America * 12 Latin America * 12 Africa Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: * 47 (no affiliation) * 32 GNSO * 20 GAC * 18 ccNSO/ccTLD * 18 At-Large * 2 SSAC * 1 ASO Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG. ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#note1> For a full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>.

13 19

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
by John Poole Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

I may be the only one thinking this, but it seems to me the following needs to addressed, before proceeding further-- In late January, 2015, Larry Strickling said: "The community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right. Everyone has the responsibility to participate as they deem appropriate." Who is the *community* Strickling is referring to? It is not just ICANN nor just ICANN stakeholders-- ".... the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to *transition the current role played by NTIA* in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)...." (NTIA, March, 2014) The global multistakeholder community is broader than just ICANN or the so-called ICANN community. Both ICANN and the US Department of Commerce acknowledge this in the Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> : "... ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally. To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to... " Subsequent to the March, 2014, announcement, at the request of the NTIA, ICANN convened a process led by, and comprised mostly of, ICANN stakeholders, but nominally open to participation by other members of the global multistakeholder community. Prior to ICANN 52, this CWG had 2 external models and 2 internal models under consideration, and was awaiting procurement of independent legal counsel advice in order to proceed with its work. Then ICANN 52 happened. I was not there personally, but I attended remotely online via Adobe Connect and also followed the #ICANN52 Twitter feed. What I read and heard was disconcerting--to name but a few examples: a) At a Registry Stakeholders Group meeting (co-Chair Jonathan Robinson was present), it was said by a CWG-stewardship member that external models were "off the table" and referred to statements of Larry Strickling/NTIA at ICANN 52. b) Jordan Carter <https://twitter.com/jordantcarter/status/564718002214432768> @jordantcarter: "Pretty surprised at the intensity of #USG and #ICANN pressure at #ICANN52 regarding an "Internal to ICANN" solution to #NTIA stewardship." c) Milton Mueller <https://twitter.com/miltonmueller/status/564718886562459649> @miltonmueller: "The US Commerce Dept is overplaying its hand in Singapore #ICANN52. If its up to the ms community, leave us alone, stop tipping the scales" Therefore I can only conclude that notwithstanding the public announcements and statements of NTIA and Larry Strickling, the US Government/Dept of Commerce/NTIA (perhaps joined in by others within ICANN) are now trying to control or manipulate, inappropriately, the outcomes of the CWG-Stewardship work. Larry Strickling and his ilk do not intimidate me--I have already addressed reports of his and other NTIA personnel inappropriate conduct in Singapore, with my US Congressman and US Senators--House and Senate Hearings are being planned after the current recess. At the same time, positive and supportive feedback was given at ICANN 52 for the CWG-Stewardship work and process thus far: Jordan Carter @jordantcarter · Feb 9 -"Impressed by the dedication, experience and skill of the #CWG team developing the names transition for #IANA stewardship. #ICANN52" Mathieu Weill @mathieuweill · Feb 9 - "I called #icann Board members to act as leaders #ianatransition : support volunteers, be clear on assessment criteria, dont get to details." Therefore, I request the Co-Chairs to assure this CWG that notwithstanding inappropriate "pressure" at ICANN 52, our work can continue as before, that neither external nor internal models are "off the table." If however, it is the judgment of the Co-Chairs, or this CWG as a whole, that this is now a top-down process being directed or manipulated from within NTIA or ICANN, then I request the Co-Chairs to so inform all CWG-Stewardship members/participants so we can end the charade--I am sure most of us have better things to do. External Trust Model proposed change: All of the above said, I attended remotely more ICANN 52 sessions than probably anyone could have who was in Singapore. I listened closely to all of the comments made in public sessions dealing with the CWG-Stewardship work. I heard Jonathan Robinson give so many presentations of the CWG-Stewardship work at ICANN 52 that I thought maybe he had changed his name to Johnny Icann :-) . Based on all of the comments made, I propose amending (and simplifying) the External Trust Model by providing (1) MRT/CSC and IAP functions (if deemed still necessary), be moved "internal to ICANN" by simply making them requirements/terms of the IANA functions operator contract; (2) 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. To reiterate, the purpose of the Trust/Trustees is to be the "lightweight" high-level, external contractual counter-party, ensuring a free, open, stable and secure internet in accordance with NETmundial Statement principles and the Affirmation of Commitments, all of which would be referenced and incorporated within the Trust instrument, enforceable by the Court where the Trust is registered; Trustees also accountable to/selected by/representative of the global multi-stakeholder community. The Trust/Trustees would have no operational role in the operation of the IANA functions or Internet Root Zone. In reality, the IANA contract is not going anywhere--ICANN is and will continue to be the IANA functions operator under a long-term contract but for insolvency, bankruptcy, or material breach such as failing to perform the IANA functions as provided by the contract, in which event the Trustees would be empowered to select a successor to ICANN in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument. The NTIA's procedural role of approving changes to the authoritative root zone file is either not needed or could be performed by ICANN itself, the Root Zone Maintainer, or a 3rd party audit firm. The External Trust Model provides a minimal, but necessary, safeguard of external accountability in place of US government oversight. I would also note that it appears CCWG-Accountability has a lot of work to do--I am glad that is not our job--I wish them well. A final note: I am personally perplexed by proposals which discuss separating IANA from ICANN. All of ICANN's authority is derivative of its role as the IANA functions operator--including ICANN's authority to authorize new gTLDs. While the day-to-day operation of the IANA department should be separate internally from the policy-making functions of ICANN, if you strip IANA from ICANN, ICANN is powerless. If I am wrong, I would like to see some authority in support thereof. Best regards, John Poole

3 4

Collected Feedback from ICANN52
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Dear all, Staff have pulled together a collection of CWG-related feedback from transcripts and recordings of a number of sessions at ICANN52. The information is in a more "raw" state at the moment, but we wanted to share in advance of the call so that some of you may have the opportunity to review. On tomorrow's call, we'll discuss further how to utilize this large amount of feedback, questions, and comments. Link to Google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Me5cYBNX5XfMha2Bl4JhMXiPbvEyo8IlSAaflDsK 25I/edit?usp=sharing Word and PDF versions are attached. Wiki uploads: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Sessions reviewed include: * GAC session on Sunday (Chairs presented and took questions) * Information session on Sunday evening (Chairs were on panel) * ICG session on Monday (Chairs were on panel) * CCWG-Accountability session on Monday (Chairs presented and took questions) * CWG-Stewardship working session on Wednesday * CWG-Stewardship Q&A session on Thursday * Public Forum on Thursday I'm still going through the Public Forum, but if there are any other sessions that we missed, please feel free to add to the list. Best, Grace

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #22 on Thursday 19 February at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Dear all, Looking forward to our next meeting on Thursday 19 February at 11:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows. Please also note two related attachments prepared by Berry Cobb. Proposed Agenda 19/2: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Processing ICANN52 a. Q&A Session b. Other Sessions 3. Work of Client Committee / Legal Advice 4. Work Methods 5. Task Forces 6. Future Work a. Key Deliverables & Dates (see below and attached) b. Meeting Schedule 7. CCWG-Accountability 8. Review of Action Items 9. AOB Key Target Dates (according to Best Case Scenario -- see attached project plan & timeline): Mar 26-27 - CWG F2F Apr 06 - Start of Public Comment Apr 24 - Close of Public Comment May 18 - Submit CWG Proposal to SO/ACs Jun 11 - Submit CWG Proposal to ICG Best, Grace

1 0

Next Meeting on 19 February at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Hi all, Thank you for a productive week of work. Let's not lose the momentum! Our next meeting is on Thursday 19 February at 11:00 UTC. Brenda will send call details next week. There are two main agenda items: further detail on working methods, and allocation of Task Forces. In the meantime, please continue to submit through the mailing list your suggestions for Task Force subjects. For those of you who were at the ICANN 52 meeting meeting, I wish you safe travels home. Best, Grace

1 0

Fwd: statement Steve Crocker
by Greg Shatan Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *WUKnoben* <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2015 Subject: statement Steve Crocker To: Cooper Elisa <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Marilyn Cade < marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Metalitz Steve <met(a)msk.com>, Smith Tim < tim.smith(a)ciparx.ca>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, Christian Dawson <dawson(a)i2coalition.com>, Graves Angie <angie(a)webgroup.com>, MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp>, "Shatan Gregory S." <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Sridhar Aparna <aparnasridhar(a)google.com> Please find here the statement as read. We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. It will also be posted Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0