- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
by Izumi Okutani Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Hi, As a follow up of our progress, I would like to share the second version of the Internet numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) for your reference. Clean Version : <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft> Redline Version: <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control> The second draft is based on the CRISP Team's considerations for comments received on the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. If you have any feedback, please submit your comment to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list before 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC, for the CRISP Team to consider as community feedback for the number resources component of the IANA function. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:21:08 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> Dear colleagues, Please find the second draft of the Internet numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team, with considerations of feedback received from the global community on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. We have incorporated the following key points in the second draft: - Additional description on contract details, review committee and intellectual property rights - Description revised on Section V. NITA Requirements and VI. Community Process for more clarity - No changes are made to key elements of the proposal The CRISP Team have considered all comments expressed on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list before the deadline of 5th Jan 2015, and would now like to make the final call for comments from the global community on the draft proposal, before submitting to the ICG. Second Draft proposal: ------------------------ Clean Version : <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft> Redline Version: <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control> The deadline for providing feedback: Mon, 12 January 2015 23:59 UTC Feedback should be sent to : <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list Community Inputs Considered by the CRISP Team: ------------------------------------------ You can check the status of the issues raised by the community and proposed the CRISP Team positions at: <http://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015> Key dates: ----------- Second draft to be published : 8 Jan 2015 Second draft comments close : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015 How to Engage in Discussions: ----------------------------- All global discussions, for the CRISP team to consider as community feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. All the CRISP Team discussions are open to observers. Next Step: ----------- In developing the final draft based on further feedback, the CRISP Team will ensure it has completed considerations of all substantial issues raised by the global community, which are compiled in the published issues list. The proposal will only incorporate issues that the CRISP team believes have received consensus support from the community. References: ------------ * Discussions by the CRISP Team Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, minutes and agendas of all the CRISP Team teleconferences and a public archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: https://nro.net/crisp-team * Other links: - The ICG request for proposals: <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en> - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region: <http://www.nro.net/timeline-engagement> - First Draft proposal (Edited version) <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1> _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

CWG - Public Consultation Statistical Analysis V2.0
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

All (at the request of the co-Chairs), Please find attached the next version (2.0) of the analysis (based on the previous spreadsheet which was presented on December 30th). All the data used is included as well as how it was classified etc. and the various tabs are aptly named. Tabulation of results has now been automated to avoid errors. There are no significant differences vs the results presented December 30th: - The analysis of all the responses together is essentially the same and still does not give a majority to Contract Co.(when using a 75% requirement) - The analysis by type of respondent is useful but the cross comparisons are not, at least in my opinion. - The analysis of ccTLDs vs the RySG proposal in interesting. - The analysis of In ICANN vs Not In ICANN is very interesting with a high degree of correlation on many points by those In ICANN. Attached. B.

3 2

CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL)
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Dear All, As communicated on this Group's mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he) Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.

8 9

Opt-in for Calendar Invitations
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Dear all, In December, we had to stop sending calendar invitations directly to you, as it was in breach of email privacy. As a temporary fix, we took to sending you the ICS file via the notify list. Many of you found this inconvenient and asked for another solution. We now can offer you the option to "opt-in" to calendar invites. Please note that, in receiving a calendar invite, your email will be included in the calendar invite that goes to all recipients. If you would still like to receive calendar invites, please respond to Brenda (cc'ed) and your name will be added to the invite recipient list. Best, Grace

8 7

Survey 2 - Contract Co and Independent Appeals Panel (IAP)
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Dear All, As indicated in the previous mail on on this topic, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the Contract Co and Independent Appeals Panel (IAP). The survey, is available online here http://goo.gl/forms/N8smhdeUk8 Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 17:00 UTC on Friday, 9 January 2015. Apologies for the very short deadline but it will be very useful to get the information in ahead of the intensive work weekend scheduled for 10-11 January. Note that this second survey is longer than the previous one but it should still be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. Again, we understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr CWG Co-chairs

1 0

Principles: Capture
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

A long time ago, I said I would come up with a footnote for the Principles document that defined Capture. "A group can be considered captured when one or more stakeholders are able to effectively control outcomes despite lack of agreement from other stakeholders who nominally should be able to drive consensus.

5 5

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Martin, In my mind, abstentions or a lack of participation based on free choice would be a willful decision not to participate in a decision and would not contribute to capture. Being prevented from participating would qualify. Capture could also be effected by design of the process. For instance, if the workload of MRT participants approaches a full-time job, or if there are requirements for participants to provide significant travel or other funds, those actively participating would be limited to those who could make such a contribution and would likely exclude significant stakeholders who did not have the financial resources to fund the operation. Alan At 06/01/2015 03:11 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >Thanks Alan, that is helpful. > >Just so I am sure that I understand the implications correctly, what >we are saying is that there needs to be a positive engagement to >support any particular outcome or decision or direction of >travel. Limited response and abstentions (unless because of >conflict of interest, I suppose) would be a measure of capture. > >Obviously the principles are not the place to set markers, but your >draft footnote would at least give a measureable basis for capture >that might need to be addressed in the final proposal. > >Thanks for your proposal. I'd welcome any comments on it from other >participants or members of the CWG. > >Martin > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: 06 January 2015 02:13 >To: CWG Stewardship >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture > >A long time ago, I said I would come up with a footnote for the >Principles document that defined Capture. > >"A group can be considered captured when one or more stakeholders >are able to effectively control outcomes despite lack of agreement >from other stakeholders who nominally should be able to drive consensus. > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

FYI: Translations of SSAC reports about transition available
by Jaap Akkerhuis Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

See the announcement below, jaap Dear SSAC members, As with the related documents SAC067 and SAC068, staff requested that ICANN Language Services should translate SAC069 SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014) into the 6 UN languages. As the source document is in English, translations were requested for Chinese, French, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic. As a bonus, Language Services also translated the document into Turkish and Portuguese. You will find the documents posted at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2012-02-25-en. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments to the CWG on Naming Related Functions, Draft Transition Proposal, Danish Business Authority
by Julia Katja Wolman Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear CWG, Please find attached comments from the Danish Business Authority to the CWG on Naming Related Functions Draft Transition Proposal, which were sent 19 December 2014. Regrettably the email did not get through the system properly. I would therefore like to make sure that you receive the comments and that they are posted on the forum. I apologize for the inconvenience. Kind regards and best wishes for 2015, Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 19. december 2014 18:25 Til: 'comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14(a)icann.org' Cc: Finn Petersen; Torsten A. Andersen Emne: Comments to the CWG on Naming Related Functions, Draft Transition Proposal, Danish Business Authority Please find attached comments from the Danish Business Authority to the CWG on Naming Related Functions Draft Transition Proposal. Kind regards, Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. ATTENTION! Due to the holiday season, The Danish Business Authority is closed from 23 December 2014 to 2 January 2015. However, all online-systems will be open/operational. For further information please visit our homepage. http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/

2 1

Meetings this week
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear all, Here below is a list of meetings this week (times in UTC). This list is available on the Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> . RFP4 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415524> Tuesday 6 January14:30 16:30 COMPLETE RFP3 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415504> Monday 5 JanuaryWednesday 7 January 14:00 16:00 RFP5 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415530> Wednesday 7 January21:00 22:00 Meeting #13 CWG IANA <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413034> Thursday 8 January11:00 13:00 Intensive Work Weekend (10 - 11 January 2015) Call #1Call #2Call #3Call #4Saturday 10 January Sunday 11 January15:00 17:0019:00 21:0013:00 15:0017:00 19:00 Please note that there will be an additional RFP5 call during the Intensive Work Weekend. The time will be confirmed soon. Brenda and I will send call details and calendar files soon. We understand that the change from direct calendar invites is inconvenient for you and we are working on a solution to this. Thank you for your patience until then. Best, Grace

1 0