- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
by John Poole Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

Dear Grace *et al:* I do not know if it is too late to change, but whenever a "discussion document" or any document is prepared for general distribution, (especially for readers not familiar with its content) never, never, separate a heading from the content immediately following. Look at the bottom of page 8, top of page 9. Word processing software can prevent this from happening (in Word it is called widow and orphan control <http://word.tips.net/T001149_Controlling_Widows_and_Orphans.html> ). At bottom of page 8, you have an "orphan" -- "Summary of the External Trust Model." The content for this heading is on page 9 with no reference as to what it is referring. Typesetters understood, long before the age of computers, to avoid "widows and orphans" so readers would not be confused and were aided in their comprehension. In addition, I am not sure what "end result" is hoped for in Singapore for the "Discussion Document"-- it may be a way to give ICANN52 attendees a very general overview, it is NOT good for discussion leading to decisions. What is the purpose of the discussion? To inform attendees of ICANN 52 of the status and enable them to ask relevant questions? Or to start lobbying attendees to make up their mind in favor of a particular option, with the hope to harden positions of ICANN stakeholders groups? From just what I have read on this and other mail lists, I fear it is the latter. In fact, I have found in answering some individual emails from CWG-Stewardship participants, they have no understanding at all of the External Trust Model, may not have been at the Jan 30th meeting where it was discussed: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 , or have "already made up their mind." As you know, I will not be in Singapore. Greg Shatan has the best understanding of the External Trust Model of anyone who will be in Singapore. To give but one example of how the "Discussion Document for ICANN 52" is NOT a "Decision Document" is the reference to U.S. law at the top of page 9. I know, and Greg knows, this is NOT a reference to U.S. Federal Law, but to the Common Law for Trusts followed by many nations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> as well as 49 of the 50 States of the USA, as it may have been modified in each jurisdiction. In the US, Trusts are formed under state law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law>, NOT federal law. This is because, unlike most nations, the US federal government (itself divided into 3 branches) has only the limited powers granted it by the US Constitution. Greg knows all this, but most, if not all readers in Singapore of the "Discussion Draft" do not know this. Perhaps someone should inform the ICANN52 attendees of this since, apparently, there are now formal Discussion and Question&Answer sessions planned for ICANN 52. Ignorance and dysfunction have a way of multiplying, even when one has "good intentions." I wish all those attending ICANN 52 the best, including safe travels. Please remember, when you are in Singapore, the words of Larry Strickling just a few days ago: "... the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right... In response to the December 1 draft, other suggestions have emerged. Are all the options and proposals being adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent?..." Best regards, John Poole

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] U.S. Senate Resolution 71
by Greg Shatan Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

Please see below. This is equally relevant to the work of our group. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:30 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] U.S. Senate Resolution 71 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Hi all, FYI, the U.S. Senate passed the following resolution on February 5. This is relevant to the work of the Accountability CCWG. The “Designation” section is particularly note-worthy. Best, Keith https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/71/text [Congressional Bills 114th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [S. Res. 71 Agreed to Senate (ATS)] 114th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 71 Designating the week of February 8 through February 14, 2015, as ``Internet Governance Awareness Week''. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 5, 2015 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to _______________________________________________________________________ RESOLUTION Designating the week of February 8 through February 14, 2015, as ``Internet Governance Awareness Week''. Whereas the United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion; Whereas the United States has, through its stewardship of key Internet domain name functions, maintained an important role in the protection of the Internet as presently constituted; Whereas on March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (referred to in this preamble as the ``NTIA'') announced its intent to transition these key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community; Whereas the transition process demonstrates that the United States supports and is committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance; Whereas the NTIA has asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (referred to in this preamble as ``ICANN'') to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by the NTIA in the coordination of the Internet's domain name system (referred to in this preamble as the ``DNS''); Whereas the NTIA has stated that there is no deadline for the transition, and that the transition proposal must have broad community support and must-- (1) support and enhance the multistakeholder model; (2) maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; (3) meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority; and (4) maintain the openness of the Internet; Whereas the NTIA has also stated that it will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization, a position that is consistent with S. Con. Res. 50 (112\th\ Congress), a concurrent resolution that was unanimously passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2012 and supported ``the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today''; Whereas ICANN will be holding its next global meeting, ICANN 52, in Singapore between February 8 and February 12, 2015; and Whereas designating the week of February 8 through February 14, 2015, as ``Internet Governance Awareness Week'' will encourage the participants at ICANN 52 to focus on developing key ICANN accountability principles for the protection of the global Internet: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. The Senate designates the week of February 8 through February 14, 2015, as ``Internet Governance Awareness Week'' to-- (1) increase public awareness regarding the March 14, 2014 announcement by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (referred to in this resolving clause as the ``NTIA'') declaring the intention of the NTIA to transition the stewardship of the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to the global multistakeholder community; (2) encourage public education about the importance of this transition process; and (3) call the attention of the participants at the next global meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (referred to in this resolving clause as ``ICANN'') to the importance of designing accountability and governance reforms to best prepare ICANN for executing the responsibilities that it may receive under any transition of the stewardship of the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, including reforms that would-- (A) insist that the domain name system continues to function as part of a secure, stable, resilient, single, decentralized, open, and interoperable Internet; (B) ensure a form of stewardship and accountability that is based on the separation of the functions of policy-making, policy implementation, and, as needed, independent adjudication or arbitration for dispute resolution; (C) limit and maintain ICANN authority to matters that pertain to the coordination of Internet unique identifiers, and limit each function to those rights, responsibilities, and authorities that have been explicitly assigned; (D) protect ICANN from undue influence or capture by one or more governments or multilateral or intergovernmental organizations, or a single set of other commercial or noncommercial stakeholders; (E) maintain the commitment of ICANN for final action regarding key policy decisions to demonstrate broad support by the community of ICANN stakeholders; (F) reinforce and expand transparency and accountability measures to ensure community access to ICANN documents and records; and (G) ensure that, prior to the execution of the transition of the stewardship of the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, each of the foregoing elements of such proposal is adopted and made effective by ICANN through incorporation in its articles of incorporation and by-laws, as needed, and subject to independent adjudication or arbitration for dispute resolution, as appropriate. SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as congressional approval of any proposal by ICANN to transition the stewardship of the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to the global multistakeholder community. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” _______________________________________________ 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/>*

1 0

CWG Public Comments Report
by Berry Cobb Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

Hi All, For your information, the report of Public Comments for the CWG draft proposal from December 2014 is posted on icann.org. Essentially the report is a summary of comments (appx. 23 pages) by category of the CWG's draft proposal primary attributes. The second section is a brief analysis of the summarized comments that also includes links to other groups analysis, as well as a link to the poll tools the CWG used to gauge trends for concepts of the proposal. Public Comment Page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en Report of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org//en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-naming-func tions-draft-transition-30jan15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-naming-func tions-draft-transition-30jan15-en.pdf> Apologies for notifying the group earlier. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Fwd: Bloomberg IANA article
by Greg Shatan Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

FYI -- the attached article was just published by BNA regarding the IANA Transition. Thank you to Robert Guerra for forwarding this. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Robert Guerra* <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Date: Saturday, February 7, 2015 Subject: Bloomberg IANA article To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Allan MacGillivray < allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> Just saw this moments before boarding plane . If it's new - please circulate to the drafting group . Thanks Robert -- *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/>*

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry Strickling's remarks
by Greg Shatan Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Thomas Rickert* <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Larry Strickling's remarks To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > All, just to add to your workload: We plan to discuss and analyze the remarks recently made by Larry Strickling during our first meeting (session1). Below, I have added a link to the text of the remarks by Mr. Strickling. Kind regards, Thomas http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… -- *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/>*

1 0

Questions regarding InternetNZ's views on the IANA transition
by Paul Szyndler Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Hi Jordan (and all), I wanted to follow up on a few exchanges that Jordan and Chris had over the last couple of weeks regarding the work of the CWG on the IANA transition. In particular, I wanted to ask a few questions in order to get a better understanding of the reasons behind InternetNZ's position and the principles outlined in your submission to the CWG's consultation. Among your key principles, there are some that I obviously wouldn't question - for example, the ongoing independence and policy development responsibilities of ccTLD managers. But there are a few principles upon which you base your position that don't immediately appear aligned with ICANN's core mission nor the goals of the NTIA's intent to transfer the management of the DNS "to the private sector". As you know, the fundamental mission of ICANN is to coordinate the stable and secure operation of the Internet. Supporting principles include the introduction of consumer choice and competition, stakeholder participation and the meaningful engagement of other relevant stakeholder bodies and affected parties. But neither the ICANN Bylaws nor mission statement refer explicitly to Internet NZ's proposed principles of separability and a distributed model for stewardship. How then, do your proposed principles contribute to ICANN's ongoing mission, and the resolution of the current transition process? Why are the principles of separability and distributed stewardship afforded such weight? In particular, as a ccTLD manager, what has led you to assume and justify the principles of separability and distributed stewardship, when no such principles existed previously? My next few questions relate to the fundamental differences of opinion we have exchanged regarding the future of IANA. Even if the principle of structural separation is to be accepted, why does InternetNZ believe that such a significant and rigid act of separation (establishment of a Contract Co) is required at this stage of ICANN's evolution? Is it not equally valid to consider that the codified "ability" to separate in the future is an acceptable outcome? Are models, such as a Trust, at least equally capable of delivering a desired result, without issues such as jurisdiction and structure, that are associated with establishing a Contract Co.? I'd welcome your views - both via email and (inevitably) further discussion when we catch up in Singapore. Regards, Paul

3 4

CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible. To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en. CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 <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-2015-02-06-en&title=CWG-Stewardship%20Publishes%20D iscussion%20Document%20for%20ICANN%2052%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d 89/-/-/54d48214d38933b5/2&frommenu=1&uid=54d48214ef7330a3&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_ provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-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-2015-02-06-en&title=CWG-Stewardship%20Publishes%20D iscussion%20Document%20for%20ICANN%2052%20-%20ICANN&ate=AT-ra-52fcc7eb243d6d 89/-/-/54d48214d38933b5/3&frommenu=1&uid=54d48214833ad281&ct=1&tt=0&captcha_ provider=nucaptcha> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en#> The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore. In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> , the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal. The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 11:45 SGT local time.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] {SPAM/L} Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] Questions regarding InternetNZ's views on the IANA transition
by Paul M Kane Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Due to the way in which the mailing lists are managed - I am a little out of the loop, but here's a quick update. Within the CWG group there is significant support for both the "internal" and "external" models. Within the ccTLD community I think the same is true for both internal and external. So there is no reason why both models cannot co-exist and operate efficiently, serving their respective constituencies. I am now going to Singapore, so see some of you next week. If are not in Singapore and want a particular view expressed, I am happy to make sure your perspective is aired. Regards to all Paul Quoting Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na>: > Just for the record, > > the position of the .NZ ccTLD manager is not uncontroversial, and if at all > only applies to .NZ. > > el > > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > > > On Feb 6, 2015, at 01:11, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, all: > > > > Thanks for your email. This is an important discussion for our ccTLD > community as well as for all those affected by the transition of stewardship > away from ICANN. > > > > In summary, for those who want the short version: > > > > - the principles of distributed stewardship and separability are status quo > principles that are in place today. Some seem to want to upend them in favour > of One Big ICANN to be the steward of the DNS, and yet such people are > claiming black is white, and that those defending the status quo are somehow > proposing a revolution. It is the other way around. > > > > - these principles are important to the stewardship of the DNS, not to the > operation of ICANN per se - but they do have consequences for ICANN > operations and structures, as set out below. > > > > - we need to conduct this discussion in a way that is accurate, not > misleading, and that helps the community towards a consensus rather than > driving people apart. > > > > > > Here below the longer version. > > > > > > Paul, there are several surprising and concerning points made in your > email, which Greg Shatanâs earlier reply dealt with in part. > > > > The most significant strangeness is your assertion that distributed > stewardship or separability are new principles. > > > > They are not new. They are the status quo. > > > > Today, stewardship of the DNS is distributed today: between ccTLD managers, > gTLD managers, registrars, ICANN as a policy body, ICANN as the IANA > Functions Operator, Verisign as the root zone maintainer, the NTIA as the > steward of the system, Internet users as participants and more. Critical to > these distributed roles and responsibilities is the independence of many of > the players, and the complex web of relationships between them. > > > > Separability exists today because the NTIA assigns the right to operate the > IANA functions to ICANN via a contract. NTIA could assign those functions to > another party: most easily for names, but still with teeth for the other IANA > customers. > > > > The question is, with NTIA stepping out of its crucial role as > > a) a component of the distributed stewardship system and > > b) as the core of separability, the granter of the rights to operate IANA, > > > > What should replace it? > > > > Our argument is the conservative one: that we should not create a Big > Brother of Internet technical coordination by putting it all in ICANN; that > we should retain the status quo of distributed stewardship and separability > that we have today. > > > > In contrast, what those critiquing the status quo seem to be proposing is a > very significant revolution. The implicit claim in your note and in the > arguments Chris has been advancing is that One Big ICANN is an appropriate > outcome: that what is today distributed among many parties should be more > concentrated in the one institution. > > > > The CWG doesnât agree, as Greg pointed out. I donât agree with you. > Many others donât agree. The notion of creating a point of failure with > significant power and authority in the Internetâs DNS is not one that > anyone caring about the security and stability of the system should endorse. > Itâs a significant change to the status quo and no argument justifying this > change has yet been advanced - other than non-arguments about convenience, or > partially . > > > > So in terms of the stewardship of the DNS system, thatâs where the > difference is. You want a narrowing of that responsibility to fewer players. > I want to see it remain broad based and external to ICANN. > > > > On operations, things are simpler I think. Thereâs a pretty narrow > difference here. We seem to agree on the following points: > > > > - ICANN is operating the IANA functions well at the moment > > - There is no desire to remove IANA from ICANN at the moment > > - customers should have a key role in oversight of the IANA functions > > - There should be a way to remove IANA from ICANN should ICANN fail at > operating the functions > > - A decision about separating IANA from ICANN would need to meet high > thresholds > > > > The point of departure seems to be what vehicle allows for separation > should it be required: an internal bylaw, an internal trust, an external > trust, an external contract company. Thatâs an implementation detail in > respect of the direct operational question, but it loops back to the broader > question of the overall stewardship. An external-to-ICANN option is the > status quo and is consistent with the principles we are arguing for. An > internal-to-ICANN option is the revolution you propose, and is not consistent > with those principles. The principles we set out relate to the transition of > stewardship, not to ICANNâs operations. > > > > What is represented in ICANNâs bylaws is of less interest to me because I > donât want it to be the One And Only steward. I want ICANN to retain its > very limited, focused mission on coordinating global policy for a set of > Internet identifiers and protocols. I donât want it to massively grow its > mission as you suggest when you say it should be concerned with âthe stable > and secure operation of the Internet.â > > > > > > On the matter of a so-called ârigid separationâ - itâs my view that > if there was ever to be a need to separate the IANA functions from ICANN, it > would be because the organisation had truly become dysfunctional. If that was > the case, there would be a lot going on - lots of pressure on all > participants from the ICANN community, on ICANN staff and governors, and so > on. > > > > That would be the very last time you would want to have to rally the > community around to try and develop new institutions to take the burden away > from ICANN. You donât build plans for bad situations by saying âletâs > sort it out if it happens!â. > > > > Itâs that preventive preparation concept which underpins the validity of > the CWGâs proposal with Contract Co, or an external trust. It means that > now, under the stability and peace of the current settlement, we put a robust > mechanism in place should it be needed. It increases the resilience of the > system by not leaving all the eggs in one basket. (It retains the status quo, > in other words.) > > > > It might be possible to blend approaches wrt an internal trust or golden > bylaw so there is an adequate resilience here - Google made a suggestion to > that effect with a backup operator concept in their comments to the CWG plan. > I donât know - I assume thatâs what the CWG is working on. But itâs > sensible to take the status quo position, which I do, without a solid case > and proposal being made for why an alternative is better. > > > > The argument for getting rid of the external backstop, and forcing the > community to rely on a single institution which would be in crisis should > this situation ever need resolving, seems to be to be inexplicable and > dangerous. > > > > It cannot do anything other than pose a threat to the security and > stability of the DNS in the long run. > > > > It assumes that ICANN can be made perfect. I donât believe that about any > institution. There is a reason that balances of powers and distributed > responsibilities are common features of every constitution that governs a > state, and of every other governance system that is able to be resilient. > > > > [None of this deals with an earlier discussion from the last Singapore > ICANN meeting about the desirability of the IANA department becoming, for > instance, a wholly owned subsidiary company of ICANN, to give a clearer > boundary between the iANA functions operator and ICANN as policy body. That > operationally related separation seems to still be in play but I just want to > be clear that this discussion isnât part of it.] > > > > > > On one other point: this is not a transition to the private sector. > > > > NTIA is seeking to transition stewardship of the Internetâs DNS to the > âglobal multistakeholder communityâ as per their comments in their > release of 14 March 2014 and all material since. I donât know why you think > that translates to the âprivate sectorâ but as a ccTLD manager that > blends technical community and civil society perspectives, I know that we in > .nz donât think the private sector is the destination for stewardship. I > would be shocked if that was AUDAâs position. > > > > Can you please clarify? Is it AUDAâs view that the stewardship of the > Internetâs DNS should be transferred to the private sector? On the face of > it, that would directly contradict NTIAâs requirements. > > > > > > Finally: your email has the regrettable effect of portraying the orthodox, > status quo position I am arguing for as something out of the box, novel and > dangerous. > > > > I ask that you avoid such characterisations in future, for two reasons. > > > > - As set out above, they are not accurate. This discussion is hard enough > without participants misleading each other as to the current situation. > > > > - Such an approach makes the discussion harder to have, and reduces the > likelihood of consensus being achievable once the discussion is over. > Without consensus the transition will run aground. > > > > > > > > See you soon in Singapore. > > > > Thanks, > > Jordan > > > > > > > >> On 5/02/2015, at 7:47 pm, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jordan (and all), > >> > >> I wanted to follow up on a few exchanges that Jordan and Chris had over > the last couple of weeks regarding the work of the CWG on the IANA > transition. > >> In particular, I wanted to ask a few questions in order to get a better > understanding of the reasons behind InternetNZâs position and the > principles outlined in your submission to the CWGâs consultation. > >> > >> Among your key principles, there are some that I obviously wouldnât > question â for example, the ongoing independence and policy development > responsibilities of ccTLD managers. > >> But there are a few principles upon which you base your position that > donât immediately appear aligned with ICANNâs core mission nor the goals > of the NTIAâs intent to transfer the management of the DNS âto the > private sectorâ. > >> > >> As you know, the fundamental mission of ICANN is to coordinate the stable > and secure operation of the Internet. > >> Supporting principles include the introduction of consumer choice and > competition, stakeholder participation and the meaningful engagement of other > relevant stakeholder bodies and affected parties. > >> > >> But neither the ICANN Bylaws nor mission statement refer explicitly to > Internet NZâs proposed principles of separability and a distributed model > for stewardship. > >> How then, do your proposed principles contribute to ICANNâs ongoing > mission, and the resolution of the current transition process? Why are the > principles of separability and distributed stewardship afforded such weight? > >> In particular, as a ccTLD manager, what has led you to assume and justify > the principles of separability and distributed stewardship, when no such > principles existed previously? > >> > >> My next few questions relate to the fundamental differences of opinion we > have exchanged regarding the future of IANA. > >> > >> Even if the principle of structural separation is to be accepted, why does > InternetNZ believe that such a significant and rigid act of separation > (establishment of a Contract Co) is required at this stage of ICANNâs > evolution? > >> Is it not equally valid to consider that the codified âabilityâ to > separate in the future is an acceptable outcome? > >> Are models, such as a Trust, at least equally capable of delivering a > desired result, without issues such as jurisdiction and structure, that are > associated with establishing a Contract Co.? > >> > >> Iâd welcome your views â both via email and (inevitably) further > discussion when we catch up in Singapore. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Paul > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > _______________________________________________ > Cctldworld mailing list > Cctldworld(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld > >

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Webinar Slides (3 February)
by Seun Ojedeji Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

As per Jonathan's request, this could be useful pending official version from staff (if necessary) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Joly MacFie" <joly(a)punkcast.com> Date: 4 Feb 2015 21:37 Subject: [IANAxfer] Feb 3 CWG IANA Webinar recording To: "Ianaxfer@Elists. Isoc. Org" <ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org> Cc: I missed the CWG webinar yesterday, so I recorded it. http://isoc-ny.org/misc/2015-2-3_cwg_iana_webinar2.mp3 There were no slides. I know ICANN will also publish a recording. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer(a)elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

CWG Webinar Slides (3 February)
by Gary Hunt Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

Good morning Grace and Brenda, Is the full version of the webinar presentation available yet? I note on the webinar webpage on the wiki states "*Slides presented for both Webinars will be available here*: (insert link)" - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656 Grateful for advice on obtaining a download of the presentation. very many thanks for your help with this in advance. Very best regards, Gary *Gary Hunt* Senior Policy Advisor; Creative Economy, Internet and International ICT *PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS A SLIGHT CHANGE TO MY e-MAIL ADDRESS: MY NEW e-MAIL ADDRESS is gary.hunt(a)culture.gov.uk <gary.hunt(a)culture.gov.uk> (the .gsi has been dropped!), please use the new address from now on. Thank you...* 4th Floor, 100 Parliament Street, London SW1A 2BQ Gary.Hunt(a)Culture.gov.uk | 020 7211 6138 @dcms <https://twitter.com/DCMS> /dcmsgovuk <https://www.facebook.com/dcmsgovuk>| www.gov.uk/dcms

3 2