- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

trying to understand this weekend
by Avri Doria Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Hi, It has become apparent that there is a core group meeting at ICANN face to face on this intense work meeting. They have perhaps even had closed meetings already. Seems a bit strange, and is a bit worrisome. Did we discuss this approach to the meeting? If so, I missed the even the notification of this happening. Also, given that we have a component of folks who have traveled for a face 2 face, have they established a detailed agenda yet for the rest of us? For the sake for transparency are their conversations being recorded, transcribed and published? I know when the schedule gets tight there is an urge to get a couple of 'reliable & reasonable' people together to huddle together to find a solution, but I worry that this will not help the rest of us reach consensus. thanks avri

3 4

Survey Documents (Part 1): CSC-MRT Survey
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the three documents related to the CSC MRT survey that will be discussed on Call #1 today. I will send the documents for the Contract Co. & IAP survey following this email. Talk to you all soon, Grace

1 1

Survey Documents (Part 2): Contract Co. & IAP Survey
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the three documents related to the Contract Co. & IAP survey that will be discussed on Call #1 today. I have sent the documents for the CSC MRT survey in a previous email. Talk to you all soon, Grace

1 0

FW: High Level Statements
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

All, Please see below for text of letter, received today, as approved by the the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). Thank-you, Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 08 January 2015 17:07 To: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Subject: High Level Statements Dear Lise and Jonathan, the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) are regularly liaising and co-ordinating their work as both work areas are interdependent and interlinked. The co-chairs of both groups have agreed that it would be valuable for the CWG-Stewardship to provide the CCWG-Accountability with a list of issues it has identified during its deliberations where the work of both group overlaps. Subsequently, the following items from the proposal published on Dec. 1st, 2014 have been identified: · Section 3.3 – “Independent Review of Board Actions – the CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed”. If this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP. · Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests. This is still under consideration by the CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws. · Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel – The CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws. Additionally, the CCWG-Accountability has been advised that "ICANN-only“ proposals currently considered might have significant input on the Accountability mechanisms required. Finally, the CWG-Stewardship pointed out that feedback would ideally be received early enough to be taken into account when finalizing the proposal to be submitted to the ICG. While the CCWG-Accountability appreciates the sense of urgency and works as expeditiously as possible on the tasks it has been chartered with, it is not feasible to publish a work results of the group in January. Nonetheless, the CCWG-Accountability has chosen to publish high level statements as a preliminary assessment of the situation. However, the CCWG-Accountability is cognizant that any preliminary assessment might be subject to change because of - changes made to the proposal published by the CWG-Sterwardship on Dec.1st, 2014 - other proposals and - changes due to other external and internal factors, such as evolving deliberations of our group. The below high level statements might be valuable to all groups or individuals working on proposals to be submitted to the ICG, which is why they are not only a response to the CWG-Stewardship, but published as a status update by the CCWG-Accountability. 1. The CCWG-Accountability noted that a significant number of contributions during the two Public Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability called for the implementation of independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors. It was often noted that these mechanisms should be in place or committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place. The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1). Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions could be added to the remit of such independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1. Other issues that were brought up by many and could qualify for being in the remit of such mechanism were decisions broadening or altering ICANN’s mandate as well as recalling one or multiple ICANN Board members. Please note that the legal nature, composition, and specific mandate of this mechanism are yet to be determined. 2. The CCWG-Accountability acknowledges the expectation for certain internal and / or external review and / or appeals processes to be implemented or committed to prior to the transition and will consider these as part of its work. 3. Further, we would like to assure you that the CCWG-Accountability output will adhere to the following considerations; · Any proposal will address the concern on to whom should ICANN be held accountable. · Any proposal will address the concern on what should ICANN be held accountable for. · Any proposal will address the concern on how ICANN or its Board of Directors should be held accountable. We hope this broad but clear roadmap helps the CWG complement their work and that we continue to work on a coordinated fashion. Please note that these statements reflect the current status of deliberations of the CCWG-Accountability and might be subject to change for the reasons mentioned above and further input from the community. Kind regards, Mathieu Weill, León Sánchez and Thomas Rickert Co-Chars of the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

RySG analysis of public comments
by Donna Austin Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

All In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG members conducted our own analysis of the comments submitted on the CWG Transition Proposal. Provided below are our conclusions and recommendations for next steps. Also attached is a document we prepared containing key excerpts of comments as they relate to various aspects of the proposal. Please accept this information in the spirit that it is offered—not as authoritative but as the result of an analysis developed by the RySG for our own purposes. We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer any questions. RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA CWG The RySG believes that the following statements have very strong support in the community and hence can be used to guide future decisions by the CWG: A. The current service of the IANA functions operator is satisfactory and ICANN should initially continue as the operator when the transition occurs. B. The IANA CWG proposal as described in the request for public comments is too complex and does not contain enough detail. Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG proposal, there appears to be reasonable support for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some form, although not necessarily as described in the CWG proposal. The RySG believes that the following statements need further investigation and/or indicate areas where additional work is warranted: i. The overall structure of the CWG proposal. ii. Contract Co. iii. Internal to ICANN option RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps 1. Suggestions made by commenters should be evaluated based on the following criteria to identify which ones should be excluded, which ones should definitely be considered further and which ones need further investigation: a. CWG principles b. Would they contribute toward a simpler proposal? c. Results of the two surveys. 2. All alternatives to the CWG proposal should be examined in detail, not just the one proposed by the ALAC, to identify what alternatives or elements of the alternatives should be investigated further. 3. An extension of the targeted time frame of at least 60 days should be requested from the ICG to allow for continued work and an additional public comment period after reasonable consensus is reached on a proposal for submission to the chartering SOs and ACs. 4. The work of the IANA CWG and Accountability CCWG are properly dependent. The IANA CWG should have the opportunity to revisit the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other options once the outputs of Workstream 1 of the Accountability CCWG are provided and consider the implications for accountability as it relates to the performance of the IANA Functions. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 4:25 PM To: Donna Austin; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Importance: High Thanks to all three of you for the good edits. The first attachment is a redline that includes a couple edits I made to the second paragraph and a comment I added on page 3 regarding the fact that the last two sections will be sent to the CWG list. Please let me know if you see any problems. I also attached a clean copy. The third document attached is a final version of our excerpts. Note I added an introduction. Donna – As our official rep, I think it would be good if you sent the documents as follows: · To the RySG & NTAG lists: o Clean version of the analysis o Excerpts document · To the CWG list: o The last two paragraphs of the analysis. o The excerpts document. Can you do that? Chuck From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:24 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc I added the ‘internal to ICANN option’ as worthy of further consideration. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:58 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Thanks to both of you. I will hold off a couple hours before finalizing and distributing. Chuck From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:15 PM To: 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Thanks Stacy. Took a stab at tweaking/shortening a bit. I changed the recommendation slightly to provide the opportunity to actually revisit the proposals once WS 1 outputs are published. Please advise if this is not what we want. Also added revisiting other alternatives. Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:04 PM To: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Okay….fairly wordy and it needs your edits, but here is my suggestion for basic language. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/595A876BF19C5C45…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_ms…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_op…>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB6546…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB6546…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

6 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RFP 3 Sub-Group (AKA RFP 3b) - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

As long as it is not accompanied by pervasive statements of "fact" (as opposed to opinion) that the proponents of the internal model are wrong and those of the Contract Co are right. Alan At 09/01/2015 12:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Well-informed skepticism is of great value in improving any proposal.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RFP 3 Sub-Group (AKA RFP 3b) - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

At 08/01/2015 06:46 PM, Allan MacGillivray wrote: >Chris thanks for volunteering. We all know >that time is very tight so I want to outline how >I think we could best optimize our time and energy. > >As you know there are three main components to >the current CWG proposal for the IANA functions: >Contract Co; CSC and the MRT, setting the IAP >aside, at least for the moment. I propose that >we focus on a variant of the CWG option which >does not have, at least immediately, a Contract >Co, but rather relies on some set of triggers >to create the separation of the IANA function >from ICANN. My hope is that we can develop a >single proposal for discussion purposes and in >this fashion, catch up to the work that has >already been done on the full CWG >proposal. With such a focus on no Contract Co >we may also be able to set aside, again, at >least for the moment, the CSC and the MRT as I >believe there is a high degree of consensus that >the functions that these two entities would >perform are needed, that is operational >oversight and periodic review respectively. The ALAC proposal kept the CSC and MRT to a large extent similar to what they were in the CWG proposal, largely to diffuse criticism that we had not provided sufficient detail. In fact, in an internal-to-ICANN solution, these dobies will likely be MUCH easier to bring into being and the "MRT" has far less to do in a steady state operation. So our work will not likely have the volume of the CWG proposal, nor will it need it. Alan > >This may seem to be a daunting task, but I would >remind you that the core of the CWG proposal ran >to only just 7 pages in the December 1 >proposal. I think that together we can put >something credible together in a reasonable amount of time. > >It would be very helpful if the communities and >organizations who had significant concerns with >Contract Co and who also sought the development >of such a proposal could actively participate as >I fear it would lack credibility without >them. I am speaking in particular of auDA, >SIDN, Google and ALAC. If I have missed >centring anyone out, you are still welcome to volunteer! > > >Allan > > > >From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] >Sent: January-08-15 5:03 PM >To: Jonathan Robinson; Allan MacGillivray >Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RFP 3 Sub-Group >(AKA RFP 3b) - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS >Importance: High > >Good evening: In the light of my pervious >comments, I would be prepared to volunteer for this function. > >Regards > >CW > > >On 08 Jan 2015, at 17:42, Jonathan Robinson ><<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > > >All, > >RFP 3 Sub-Group (AKA RFP 3b) - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS > >Please note this urgent call for volunteers for a sub-group of RFP3. > >The sub-group is required to work together to >further develop a variant proposal for the CWG >which takes account of proposals and comments >received by the CWG, particularly as they relate >to a so-called internal to ICANN option or >variant to the original draft proposal of the CWG. > >Allan Mc Gillivray has offered to assist with >co-ordination of the group and it will need a >committed team to work with Allan in short order >to make the requisite progress. > >Thank-you. > > >Jonathan >CWG Co-chair > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>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

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments
by Donna Austin Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

All I’ve just realised in sending this message that I have included an email thread that was not intended for this list. I would appreciate it if you could disregard the information contained following my signature. Thanks for understanding. Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Donna Austin Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 6:15 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: RySG analysis of public comments Importance: High All In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG members conducted our own analysis of the comments submitted on the CWG Transition Proposal. Provided below are our conclusions and recommendations for next steps. Also attached is a document we prepared containing key excerpts of comments as they relate to various aspects of the proposal. Please accept this information in the spirit that it is offered—not as authoritative but as the result of an analysis developed by the RySG for our own purposes. We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer any questions. RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA CWG The RySG believes that the following statements have very strong support in the community and hence can be used to guide future decisions by the CWG: A. The current service of the IANA functions operator is satisfactory and ICANN should initially continue as the operator when the transition occurs. B. The IANA CWG proposal as described in the request for public comments is too complex and does not contain enough detail. Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG proposal, there appears to be reasonable support for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some form, although not necessarily as described in the CWG proposal. The RySG believes that the following statements need further investigation and/or indicate areas where additional work is warranted: i. The overall structure of the CWG proposal. ii. Contract Co. iii. Internal to ICANN option RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps 1. Suggestions made by commenters should be evaluated based on the following criteria to identify which ones should be excluded, which ones should definitely be considered further and which ones need further investigation: a. CWG principles b. Would they contribute toward a simpler proposal? c. Results of the two surveys. 2. All alternatives to the CWG proposal should be examined in detail, not just the one proposed by the ALAC, to identify what alternatives or elements of the alternatives should be investigated further. 3. An extension of the targeted time frame of at least 60 days should be requested from the ICG to allow for continued work and an additional public comment period after reasonable consensus is reached on a proposal for submission to the chartering SOs and ACs. 4. The work of the IANA CWG and Accountability CCWG are properly dependent. The IANA CWG should have the opportunity to revisit the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other options once the outputs of Workstream 1 of the Accountability CCWG are provided and consider the implications for accountability as it relates to the performance of the IANA Functions. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 4:25 PM To: Donna Austin; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Importance: High Thanks to all three of you for the good edits. The first attachment is a redline that includes a couple edits I made to the second paragraph and a comment I added on page 3 regarding the fact that the last two sections will be sent to the CWG list. Please let me know if you see any problems. I also attached a clean copy. The third document attached is a final version of our excerpts. Note I added an introduction. Donna – As our official rep, I think it would be good if you sent the documents as follows: · To the RySG & NTAG lists: o Clean version of the analysis o Excerpts document · To the CWG list: o The last two paragraphs of the analysis. o The excerpts document. Can you do that? Chuck From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:24 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc I added the ‘internal to ICANN option’ as worthy of further consideration. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:58 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Thanks to both of you. I will hold off a couple hours before finalizing and distributing. Chuck From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:15 PM To: 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Thanks Stacy. Took a stab at tweaking/shortening a bit. I changed the recommendation slightly to provide the opportunity to actually revisit the proposals once WS 1 outputs are published. Please advise if this is not what we want. Also added revisiting other alternatives. Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:04 PM To: rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com> Subject: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc Okay….fairly wordy and it needs your edits, but here is my suggestion for basic language. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/595A876BF19C5C45…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_ms…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_op…>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB6546…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB6546…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D…>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Notes from IANA CWG Meeting #13 (8 January)
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 Call on 08 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413034 · Action: Everyone to complete the surveys that have been distributed (see http://goo.gl/forms/N8smhdeUk8 <http://goo.gl/forms/N8smhdeUk8> - deadline 17:00 UTC on Friday, 9 January 2015 And http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he <http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he> - deadline 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January). · Action: RFP3 sub-group to review CSC documentation (structural analysis) and provide input. · Action: For those that are not able to participate in the intensive working weekend, please share any comments / ideas / suggestions with the list ahead of the weekend · Action: Give consideration to a second workstream to further develop elements of the internal to ICANN solution · Action: Undertake qualitive analysis of public comments, time permitting · Action: Give consideration to second public comment period if final proposal is significantly different from original Proposal The call Schedule for work weekend: Saturday 10 January 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 Sunday 11 January 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 Best, Brenda

1 0

Survey Links - for your convenience
by Greg Shatan Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Just in case you might have difficulty locating the two links, so that you can use this "free hour" :-)[?] productively, I supply them here: Survey #1: http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he Survey #2: http://goo.gl/forms/N8smhdeUk8 Greg

4 7