- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

All, At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document. Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request. We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call. As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution. Thank You. B. Ps clean and track changes version included.

10 30

Notes, Recordings, Transcript RFP3 - 02 FEB 21:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 on 02 FEB are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232288 Action Items Action: Chat and discussion with Kim Davies on what IANA does (day-to-day) - Ask Kim to attend CWG session - Ask Chairs to allocate time on agenda to discuss how IANA works - Encourage all to attend Wednesday IANA session: <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana> http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana - Schedule Kim to be on our call post-SG Notes 2/2: Questions-focused meeting! Strickling questions: Questions are part of his remarks here: <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… rence-1272015> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… ence-1272015 Question 1 * Yes, it's an over-complication -- Paul Kane * Yes, it's an unknown, a risk -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) * Any change will have risks, so we need to understand them and mitigate them -- Avri Doria * The lesser risk is potentially the "internal to ICANN" solution -- Donna Austin * General agreement that there are risks on both sides (internal / external) * Need for legal counsel -- John Poole Question 2 This question is about the authorization function Question 3 Yes, purpose of RFP3b Question 4 Too early to answer Authorization function * Role that NTIA performs needs to be replaced (Donna Austin) * In the past, there was no authorization function (Paul Kane) * Should be an automated process going forward (Paul Kane) * There needs to be some checks & balances for redelegation (Chris Disspain) * Need to be careful with a new entity in charge on authorization function (litigation risk) (Chris Disspain) * New role shouldn't exceed parameters of old role (Greg Shatan) Action: Chat and discussion with Kim Davies on what IANA does (day-to-day) - Ask Kim to attend CWG session - Ask Chairs to allocate time on agenda to discuss how IANA works - Encourage all to attend Wednesday IANA session: <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana> http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana - Schedule Kim to be on our call post-SG Questions to be added to the draft * How walled off is the IANA Function? * What level of separability is desirable? * Do you want to see this transition happen? why or why not? * As the registrants, registrars and registries that pay for the IANA operation do you care how much it costs? do you care how much it actually costs to support the IANA function for protocols and numbers? * Are we comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker as the IANA operator (policy-implementer) without external oversight? * We also have to start thinking about how the current ICANN centric policy making process would work in the event that a new IANA operator were chosen. For example, should ICANN determine that there should be another round of new gTLTDs, how would we ensure that the new operator would accept this? * how about what does functional separation mean to you? * what solution path has not been thought of yet by the CWG? . Should the primary customers have a weighted say in which proposal is acceptable?

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ...
by Greg Shatan Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

I thought the email below was worth posting to the CWG-IANA list, given its relevance to our timelines as well. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ... To: Adam Peake <adam.peake(a)icann.org>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Colleagues Since "timelines" are to be discussed next week in Singapore (and since I will not be there) I wanted to raise a question/issue that has been troubling me for several weeks and with which I've been struggling in terms of reconciling a suitable answer. My question begins with a single assumption -- that the CCWG recommends to the Board accountability changes, at least one of which requires a change in the Bylaws of ICANN. That is by no means certain, of course, given our ongoing discussions but I think it is fair to characterize those discussions as making such a recommendation reasonably likely. Based on earlier conversations within the CCWG and input from Bruce Tonkin, here is what I understand the Bylaw amendment process to entail: (1) Board of Directors acceptance of the recommendation from the working group; (2) drafting of the specific wording of the bylaw amendment and corresponding changes to related provisions by the ICANN General Counsel's office; (3) posting of the proposed language for public review and comment, (in the past this seems typically to have been for 21 to 45 days); and, finally, (4) a formal vote to adopt the bylaw amendments, which requires a two-thirds majority of the Board. One final preliminary factual point. Pursuant to the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions Contract with ICANN: "The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension." In other words, if the NTIA were to choose to extend the contract it must provide preliminary notice to ICANN no later than August 31, 2015, and final notice of that decision no later than September 15, 2015. I am therefore uncertain how our timeline will fit with these requirements. I assume that in addition to the steps identified above there were need to be some interaction between the Board and NTIA by which NTIA would announces its conclusion that the proposed accountability measures (including the hypothetical Bylaw change) would satisfy the conditions that it has set for the transition. I also assume that the Board would simultaneously begin the public consultation process for the Bylaw amendment but would not vote to formally adopt the amendment until after that process concludes and the NTIA review has concluded -- no point in adopting a Bylaw that NTIA deems inadequate or unnecessary. And, finally, if a Bylaw amendment is necessary I assume that the NTIA would not renew the contract in the absence of a Bylaw amendment. So this is the timeline I see right now: June 30 -- CCWG transmits recommendations for accountability July 31 -- Final deadline for submitting recommendations to Board by ICG August 1 -- Board submits proposals to NTIA and Community -- concurrent August 21 -- Board closes public Comment period/NTIA approves August 22 -- Board votes "yes" As you can see, this is remarkably tight and assumes immediate concurrence in all recommendations by the Board (which may or may not be a reasonable assumption) as well as the absence of pushback either from the NTIA or the broader community -- hence my concern with timelines. This also assumes that in the end we agree that a commitment to implement a Bylaw change is sufficient for accountability purposes -- as opposed to the view of some (including me) that actual implementation is preferable. It appears to me inevitable that NTIA will have to file a protective notice of extension on August 31. And it seems almost equally certain that the NTIA will have to renew the contract. Is there a way to accelerate the timeline? I assume not. But I thought I would ask. If there isn't then what is a realistic extension timeline? 6 months? Regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:adam.peake@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:34 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft agenda CCWG meeting with the Board Proposed draft agenda for CCWG meeting with the Board. 11 am to 12 noon. Sunday Feb 8 03:00 - 04:00 UTC (1) A discussion about timelines, particularly around and leading up to ICANN 53 Buenos Aires (2) To clarify how the Board will handle CCWG's proposal, and any anticipated reasons why a proposal/part of a proposal might be refused? The anticipated process following any such refusal. (3) CCWG to provide an update of the two work avenues developed from the face-to-face discussions in Frankfurt, that is: * mechanisms that enable community empowerment over Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers * mechanisms to enhance review and redress processes The meeting is not yet on the ICANN 52 Schedule, but the CCWG wiki is update https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Includes all meetings of the CCWG during the week. Thank you, Adam _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

CWG - Discussion document for Singapore (PDF Version)
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

All, Please see attached for the final version of the CWG Discussion Document for Singapore. Thank-you to all who contributed to the preparation and refinement of the document. We believe that we now have an excellent document, prepared in good faith, that attempts to capture and summarise the considerable progress made by this group to date. Moreover, we hope that this, together with our other communication and interaction work, will provide the broader community with a solid base to understand the work of the CWG to-date and therefore, to effectively engage with us as we move ahead towards a proposal. We look forward to working with you over the next week or so on this important phase of our work and for those who are travelling to Singapore, safe travels and see you there. Best wishes, Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs

1 0

FW: CWG - Discussion document for Singapore
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

All, Please see attached for the final version of the CWG Discussion Document for Singapore. Thank-you to all who contributed to the preparation and refinement of the document. We believe that we now have an excellent document, prepared in good faith, that attempts to capture and summarise the considerable progress made by this group to date. Moreover, we hope that this, together with our other communication and interaction work, will provide the broader community with a solid base to understand the work of the CWG to-date and therefore, to effectively engage with us as we move ahead towards a proposal. We look forward to working with you over the next week or so on this important phase of our work and for those who are travelling to Singapore, safe travels and see you there. Best wishes, Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs

1 0

Fwd: [discuss] WEBINAR: Update on the IANA Stewardship Transition Process
by Greg Shatan Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

FYI --- forwarding email from Greg Wood (not me) at ISOC. Greg Shatan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Wood <wood(a)isoc.org> Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:40 PM Subject: [discuss] WEBINAR: Update on the IANA Stewardship Transition Process To: discuss(a)1net.org [Please find information below about an upcoming webinar organized by the Internet Society. Sincerely, -Greg] Since the 14 March 2014 announcement by the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the transition from the US Government to the global multistakeholder community, the Internet community has been working hard to produce by 30 September 2015 a proposal to transition the stewardship role over IANA functions currently played by the NTIA. Key participants in the process to develop a proposal for transitioning to the global multistakeholder community stewardship of the IANA functions for Internet domain names, numbers, and protocol parameters will provide an update on the process and progress so far during a webinar open to everyone. Date/Time: Wednesday 25 February 2015, at 14:00 UTC Webinar participants include: • Alissa Cooper, Chair, IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group • Demi Getschko and Narelle Clark, Internet Society appointees to IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group • Eliot Lear, Member, Internet Architecture Board and author of the Internet Engineering Task Force IANAPLAN document • Nurani Nimpuno, Member, Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team • Matthew Shears, Participant, ICANN Cross Community Working Group • Theresa Swinehart, Sr. Advisor to the President on Strategy, ICANN This webinar is intended to provide an update for those who many not have been previously engaged in or following this process, and will be moderated by Internet Society Policy Advisor Konstantinos Komaitis. The Internet Society is organizing this webinar as part of its efforts to provide information for, and to facilitate discussions among, the broader Internet community about the IANA Stewardship Transition process. Participation instructions are below and available at: http://www.internetsociety.org/ianaxfer +++++++++ CONNECTING TO THE WEBINAR To join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device, please visit: https://isoc.zoom.us/s/181452151 To join from a dial-in phone: Dial: +1 (415) 762-9988 or +1 (646) 568-7788 Webinar ID: 181 452 151 International numbers available: https://isoc.zoom.us/zoomconference System requirements: Zoom 3.0 or higher is required to join the webinar, and may be downloaded from: https://isoc.zoom.us/download, Apple App Store or Google Play. About the Internet Society The Internet Society (www.internetsociety.org) is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership around the world. It is also the organizational home for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). With its principled vision, substantial technological foundation and its global presence, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

URGENT - Re: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Berry or anyone, Is this the final version and does it have a URL? If so can I have it ASAP, as in now. Thanks B. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Berry Cobb <mail(a)berrycobb.com> wrote: > Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleagues, > > I sent Jonathan the wrong version, please see the attached timeline for the > most recent version. > > My apologies for the error. > > Thank you. B > > Berry A. Cobb > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers > 720.839.5735 > mail(a)berrycobb.com > @berrycobb > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 06:27 > To: Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir > Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate > > Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages, > > Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some > more detail. > > Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to > respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of > 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This > has > involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work > required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key > dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a > three key points: > > 1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily > mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. > 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, > not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. > 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and > the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG. > > Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to > provide > a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case > seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be > signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with > the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key > areas > of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity > periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face > meeting > of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable > and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on > the diagram. They include but are not limited to: > > A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues > around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any > such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations > to > support the outcome of the work of the CWG > > Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has > the > support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely > fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that > we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit > target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may > not be achievable. > > We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing > to > work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed > of > and engaged in our progress to that end. > > Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task. > > Sincerely, > > > > Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr > > Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the > CWG > correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with > the current timetable of the ICG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] > Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational > communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions > about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to > complete > its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of > 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the > CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate > time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon > as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful > for > you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to > complete > your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of > assistance. > > We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target > completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the > group’s progress until its work is complete. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

4 3

FW: CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

All, Apologies for the delay in sharing this correspondence. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 30 January 2015 20:03 To: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Subject: CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies Dear Lise and Jonathan, Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January. It was helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was informative and showed we are working in the same direction. We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that discussion follows. You can also find details of the sessions, including staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500 and at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+%234+--+Action+it… <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+#4+--+Action+item…> . We first presented your letter to the group and then, at the end of the meeting, came back to that point and discussed our response. • Budget Accountability and Transparency While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically address the IANA budget at a level of detail the CWG is likely to ask for. Therefore, we encourage the CWG to recommend measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget and we will support requests for increased transparency. • Accountability for (re)delegations As you can see from the transcript, the CCWG has extensively discussed this point, particularly to ensure the demarcation between the remits of the CCWG and the CWG is well understood. This relates especially to the sensitivities of ccTLD Registries related to (re)delegations and we would like to stress that we understand that the role of the ICANN Board with respect to (re)delegations should not go beyond its current role. Also, there is no intention by the CCWG to give an accountability mechanism decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs. Notwithstanding the above and to the extent that the Board may take future decisions in this area, the CCWG intends to recommend accountability mechanisms that will be relevant. In any event, we expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration process for Board as well as management/staff decisions. • Independent Review of Board Actions CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very much in tune with CWG approach. • Independent Appeals Panel We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we aligned in our thinking/approach, but the CCWG is cognizant of the fact that the CWG might need to explore its own mechanisms . • Control over ICANN Board decisions. When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had not had chance to review before the meeting. The CCWG is now considering options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions. We are very aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature of the ICANN policy decision-making process. Community oversight of Board decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to make a decision in the case of inaction. This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the coming weeks. Kind regards, Mathieu Weill, León Sánchez, Thomas Rickert

4 3

CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
by John Poole Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Bernard: Please change "would" to "could" as I requested Sunday and again earlier today (you made other changes as requested)--so the text now at page 9 will read as follows (in regard to the External Trust Model): The MRT, CSC and IAP *could* be the same as under the Contract Co. model or moved (some or all functions) internally to ICANN. Best regards, John Poole

1 0

CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
by John Poole Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Bernard: Please change "would" to "could" as I requested Sunday and again earlier today (you made other changes as requested)--so the text now at page 9 will read as follows (in regard to the External Trust Model): The MRT, CSC and IAP *could* be the same as under the Contract Co. model or moved (some or all functions) internally to ICANN. Best regards, John Poole

1 0