- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding IANA transition in the bylaws
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Forwarding Bruce Tonkin's message (sent to the CCWG). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:15 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding IANA transition in the bylaws To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Hello All, Note that I personally think it would be possible to put appropriate text in the bylaws regarding the process and steps to transition the IANA function outside of the organization if required. There are already various mechanisms in the bylaws that allow groups to make such decisions. For example the nominating committee is empowered under the bylaws to appoint Board directors. Then the Board can be held accountable to follow its bylaws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript RFP3 19 January 21:00 UTC
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 Call on 19 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416943 Notes Notes 19/1 Composition (page 2) * How is the names community defined? Symantic distinction - maybe revert back to 'other MS organizations'? * CSC focused on direct customers, but with a small number of representatives of other groups/organizations bringing specific expertise to the group (e.g. SSAC, RSSAC). * Currently customers already review IANA reports and information and report back accordingly. No barriers to issues being raised or brought forward, but focus should be on customers and technical function. * CSC may not need to meet for more than once every year or every two years * Functions of CSC should be narrowly focused * 1 non-customer representative, possibly drawn from MRT (liaison that could also speak on behalf of broader non-customer base?) * CSC would not be the new authorization function - would meet monthly to have a quick check of reports and if there are any issues, discuss how to resolve these (as currently already happens) by speaking directly to IANA. Only if issues are not resolved would these be escalated to MRT (no ability to interrupt / delay any IANA services). * Proposal - min of 2 ccTL registry reps/ min of 2 gTLD registry reps, with others able to opt in over time. How will the member seats on the CSC be allocated? * By CWG or MRT? Or by registries? * Registries (gTLD/ccTLD) should allocated registry seats. * SSAC/RRSAC/MS seats - consider a similar model as used by SSAC? Consider applications based on skills/expertise including peer review. * Selection process driven by those that have seats on CSC including some form of selection / credentialing. * Observers should be allowed (e.g. mailing list publicly archived, meeting recordings made available) * Should ccTLD registry representative seats be allocated by region? - up by each group (gTLD registies/ccTLD registries) to determine how many representatives are needed and whether any geographic diversity is required. Term length and limits * Term limit could be aligned with contract cycle - e.g. if term is 5 years, minimum term should be 5 years. How will decisions be made? * What would CSC be voting on? Possibly when to escalate something to MRT - but generally it would be expected to be rough consensus driven without any need for votes. Capture * Is there anything that this group could do that is beyond its remit? Capture needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. CSC has oversight role, escalation and reporting - what would be there to be captured? Site visits * Are part of the current contract - should these be continued by CSC or MRT? Are these still needed? Action Items: None

1 0

Revised Draft Legal Scoping Document
by Greg Shatan Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

This document has now been extensively revised. Most earlier "suggestions" have been "accepted into the document. A few have been left open for further consideration. There are also a number of new changes and additions. Please review as soon as possible, as i would like to put this document largely to rest by 20:00 UTC Tuesday. Here is the link. Please make sure to make your changes in "suggesting" or "comments" mode, not "editing" mode. Thanks! https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CfnVwo4d3tIGyuFB2fyxqF0ycQ6uxo0rjlvtqh… Thanks! Greg

4 7

Calls this week -- Schedule
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, Below is the call schedule for this week (time in UTC): RFP3 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416943> Monday 19 January21:00 23:00 RFP4 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416945> Tuesday 20 January21:00 23:00 Meeting #19 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416957> Thursday 22 January11:00 13:00 RFP5 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meeting+%235+CWG+RFP5 > Thursday 22 January21:00 23:00 RFP3B <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417872> Friday 23 January14:00 16:00

1 0

RIR proposal on YouTube
by Jaap Akkerhuis Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

At least, the announcement of that: <http://youtu.be/ihB4ZyDvFwM>. jaap

1 0

Draft Legal Scope Google Doc; Search for Counsel
by John Poole Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Dear Greg *et al:* I was recently added as a "participant" to CWG-Stewardship and just read your Thursday email with a deadline of 15:00 UTC Friday 16 January 2015 for comments and suggestions re: Draft Legal Scope Google Doc; and Search for Counsel. (1) I ask for inclusion of the following (or similar) in the "Draft Legal Scope" document: "Could, or should, Contract Co. take the form of a Trust established under American law, registered with a Court having General Jurisdiction (state court) [to ensure that the terms of the Trust will at all times in the future be met], the Trust to have a Board of Trustees selected from the global internet community, and the Trust receiving an assignment from the US Department of Commerce (NTIA) of all the US government's rights and duties under the “IANA contract;” and further, the Trust having as its primary purpose and duty to ensure the continuous operation of a free, open, secure, and stable global internet DNS, including the Internet Root Zone, by the selection of an IANA functions operator (presently ICANN), for a term of years (subject to termination for cause), and such other terms, conditions, and covenants necessary or convenient, in order to carry out the purpose of the Trust and the duty of the Trustees thereof to act at all times in the wider public interest of the global internet community." (2) I offer the following suggestion for outside counsel (CWG-Stewardship needs the best legal counsel available; further, Jones Day should have *no involvement* in this due to the obvious conflict of interest): Latham & Watkins LLP (a worldwide law firm) http://www.lw.com/ Best regards, John Poole

3 3

Updated revision of the accountability dependencies
by Avri Doria Jan. 18, 2015

Jan. 18, 2015

Hi, I have attached a snapshot of the Accountability dependency doc found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn…> I have noticed a fair number of people checking it out, but very few making comments. This version is the result of Chuck's and my edits trying to make sure we captured issues that had been raised. It is only a snapshot revison as there is recognition that as we dig deeper in the proposed solution we may find other dependency issues. Want to make sure that those who will not or can not use Drive docs would still have a chance to view it before it was sent to CCWG-Accountability. I have attached several versions {docx, odt, pdf} I am in the Dulles airport for the next 5 hours on my way to Frankfurt for the CCWG meeting. I would like to send it out to them before I take off if at all possible. I would also make me feel more comfortable to have at least one of the co- chairs give leave to send this to CCWG before doing so, but given that it is the weekend and that the Accountability meeting is on Monday, am loathe to wait too long. the co-chairs, have incidentally had full edit access to the document, but they have not taken advantage, not that they needed to. I will add header and footer for proper presentation before sending it. Thanks. avri

4 6

Notes, Actions items from RFP3 call 16 Jan
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 Call on 16 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415506 Agenda: 1. Return to reviewing the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the following link: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8… 2. Consider the areas of divergence from the surveys (as opposed to areas of convergence, which were explored over the weekend). I will recirculate those emails shortly. 3. Review Section 3 of the Draft Proposal with an eye toward preparing a revised version for discussion in Singapore. A copy of Section 3 is attached. Notes: Goal today is to drill down on concept on customer standing committee Review of CSC Structural Analysis Entity Status of CSC // Relationship to ICANN * Communities sign on to recognize the CSC <--> and ICANN will need to recognize them * Staffan Jonson: Could use Avri's idea of having an IETF or ISOC affiliation so as to keep the CSC limited to technical and operational oversight * IETF is an "activity" of ISOC -- the 4th step in IETF appeals process is ISOC. So IETF is independent, but lives under the ISOC umbrella. * Could CSC "hang under" ICANN? Could ICANN be the umbrella for CSC? Yes, if well defined. * Are we assuming that the role that which is based in the document circulated for this call? * Staffan Jonson: The role of CSC was to represent Registries and IANA Functions Operator. In that case, the CSC doesn't need to be legally recognized. It could be like any other organization of ICANN * Greg Shatan: CSC needs to be more inclusive of other stakeholders * The group that is making the decision for separability is essentially part of the group that the would separate from Note: Tying definitions to "IANA Functions Operator" instead of "ICANN" is more future proof Relationship to MRT * The CSC doesn't escalate problems itself --> it goes to MRT * Role and composition are not the same thins. The role of the mission (and the * Avri Doria (personal): support the idea of the CSC moving if the ICANN. In IETF model, the only relation is for appeals. Should consider talking to the experts who set up this structure * Martin Boyle: CSC should respond to the multi-stakeholder community and to the customers. Only to MRT if we want to escalate * Stephanie Duchesneau: clarify the language of "takes direction from" ---> directions should be clarified, presumably the CSC responsibilities which will include both regular monitor duties and addressing particular issues that were flagged by customers. Both of these types of responsibilities should be set forth in some governing documents (charter?) which is what it should be taking directions form. * Greg: concerned that the CSC will become "cartel-like" ie less multistakeholder and transparent. We need to control for this. * Martin Boyle: we are looking to raise issue of concern to the supplier... Cartel aspect comes in because we could fire the operator if we do something the group * Inclusion of experts lessens the cartel aspect -- experts can raise alarms * Need to look at function before structure * CSC is similar to a Level 1 Helpdesk (power to talk and power to act) * Avri Doria: Power to not act, or refusal to act (in this case of a bad policy for example) * Stephanie Duchesneau: registries may not have that incentive. * Donna Austin: ccTLD have a long relationship with IANA and has set out processes for monitoring... Can someone from ccTLD community speak to this? * Bernie Turcotte: was the first to set up relationship with ccTLDs and IANA. Eventually became very good relationship. Hope that the CSC will have a similar concept. * Staffan Jonson and Martin Boyle agree that that the IANA performance is good/satisfactory today. * Separation between formulating policy and overviewing policy is, and should be the main separation between CSC and MRT * Martin Boyle: CSC should be more in communicator position rather than enforcer Organizational Documentation (Charter, etc.) * Why a Charter for CSC? Do you mean terms of reference and modus operandi? * Charter = Terms of Reference + Modus Operandi * Perhaps add an addendum to clarify what they definition is Transparency (all generally agree) Two different approaches: - IANA Observer on the call - Questions formulated to IANA At a minimum, should have a more open line of communication with Humor // Good lines: . Lawyers peel onions and make OTHERS cry. Action Items All to review the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the following link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8…

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process and Updated Transition Process Timeline
by Greg Shatan Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process and Updated Transition Process Timeline Just in case you haven't seen this.... https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-07-en Greg

1 0

Notes and Action Items from 14 Jan RFP3B conference call
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3B Call on 14 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417868 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417868%20> Notes and Action Items 1. Welcome and roll call Adobe connect list as member present. No one on audio only 2. Background Specific concerns around Contract Co. two submissions explicit alternate proposals ( ALAC and AUDA) Purpose of Sub-working group Develop alternate proposal to "Frankfurt Proposal" Approach to tasks at hand Relationship to RFP 3 Convenient to use same terminology, however be mindful of evolution. Comment, MRT could be like a new Supporting Organization. IANA function to be overseen by similar committee like current Nominating Committee. Start with alternative for Contract Co. Steve Crocker: 4 pieces to puzzle 1. What mechanism should be in place 2. lack of clarity around what IANA Function is. IAAN Function is clerical function. Not policy decision. Decision to make delegation or re-delegation is outside. This is tool to make 3. lack of clarity of what separation. Decision to make what goes into root zone are made by ICANN, is it meaningful if clerical is outside 4. what are criteria to make judgment of separation Question what is minimal proposal to make this work Interpretation of IANA Function Contract: (Intended) Clear separation between policy decision and clerical action Upstream decision should not be interpreted as IANA decision Resistance to perception that IANA is operational. and what are for example new gTLDs is policy decision. Use IANA operational function as leverage of policy function. Policy development * Judgment within policy * Decision on Amazon or Vine are policy decision ( value decision). IANA process after decisions. * Independence from the Board: there should be some group that has unfettered access to function, alternate to NomCom, root signing process. Group could be CSC like. * Separation discussion is revisit of discussion 15 years ago. Signal for ICANN Board to look into calls for separation * Need for clean and clear distinction between policy and execution/operation. Policy definition is blurred band blurs discussion. Start with clear definition of IANA Function. * Focus discussion on ALAC and Auda proposal as starting point (one variant) * Comment Becky: IAP and other items are reflection of not getting at policy execution and not at operations on the other hand. Focusing on operations is starting point. * Comment AG on ALAC proposal: need for more details are needed to meet requirement of RFP 3 required by ICG.ALAC proposal principles far more important than details What should be focus of RFP 3B * Greg Shatan, coordinator RFP 3: Focusing on alternate approach without Contract Co, may ultimately change way how MRT and CSC are viewed. By focusing on all directly would slow down process overall. * Suggestion is to focus first on alternate for Contract Co and contract. Short term viable discussion on alternate of Contract Co. * Steve Crocker: Is focus on non-contracting co? this will not address core of the problem * Greg Shatan: start again with functional discussion. Structure follows function * Start of functional analysis: After understanding what IAN Functions are: determine specific risks/issues. (what if IANA does not follow instruction) or does not perform well, then look for mitigating measures. * The risks are in area of decision making area. The decisions should be out of IANA. After transition this should be clarified. * Background for agenda and proposal, based on comment and issues with raised in public comments focus on Contract Co. or go back ground work. * Suggestion by taking out Contract Co. as mechanism problem can be redefined, and mitigating * Duty to investigate all proposal and understanding ramifications of these proposals. Understanding benefits and down side, to inform the ccTLD and gTLD operators to make a reasoned decision. * Issue is where and by whom will be examination be done. RFP 4 should do stress test and understand ramifications. Purpose of RFP 3b is to build proposal that is build around alternative proposal RFP 3b. Functional analysis includes 3 aspects: clear about IANA Function , role of NTIA in relation to IAN Function and functional alternate to Contract Co Proposal for functional analysis - ICANN performs IANA function under contract, what is alternate? Auda proposal - Elements not to be addressed by this group (less relevant), such as CSC and MRT aspects, or rebid process. Current naming function operation done well. Naming function, is narrow this focuses approach. Contract Co approach is too broad. "Nuclear option", although causes may be highly unlikely they should be developed. Analogy and principle are similar to relation between Auda and Australian government. Suggested approach something like "golden bylaw" Definition of power Singular difference: a single government overseeing. This difference should drive to a different type of solution. Resolve issue what is discussed in one group or another If something goes wrong, first step is to have a discussion. Further if something goes really wrong, there will uproar and as a results in changes, next step is to secure No single government argument Focus must be actual functions and incentive to make it work, and reduce the risk of capture to capturing it. Need to define parameters the IANA Function needs to be performed and what will happen if not preformed adequately. Need to take have a look functions again Action Allan: look with staff at functional analysis to be presented to the group Specific reason for creation of this group: come up with a proposal without contract Co and contract. as alternative Next call to accommodate those whose who are in Frankfurt Action Allan: look with staff at functional analysis to be presented to the group The next call after Frankfurt is Wednesday 21 January - 21:00 - 23:00 UTC Kind regards, Brenda

1 0