- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Call for volunteers for the Drafting Group
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Dear all, As noted on the previous CWG call, there will be a small drafting team working intensively between now and 29 December to produce a summary/analysis of the public comments received. This group includes the Chairs and the Coordinators. If you would like to join this effort, please contact me directly. Please note: this will be a high-intensity activity occurring over what is a holiday period for some. Please only join the effort if you are able to commit the significant time required. The summary/analysis is not expected to be a final or authoritative document but rather an aid to the CWG as it prepares for the next steps of its work. The summary/analysis will be presented to the full group on our next call on 30 December at 14:00 UTC. Best, Grace

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions
by Steve Crocker Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Folks, The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment. Thanks, Steve Crocker for the ICANN Board of Directors

6 10

A little more public comment action today....
by Greg Shatan Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

29 public comments on 12/22, plus 1 just after the cut-off.

2 2

Composition of MRT
by Guru Acharya Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

The CWG is yet to decide the composition of the MRT. I was hoping someone could throw a strawman composition at us so that discussions can be initiated. As reference, the composition of ICG is as follows: ALAC x 2 ASO x 1 ccNSO x 4 GAC x 5 GNSO x 3 gTLD Registries x 2 ICC/BASIS x 1 IAB x 2 IETF x 2 ISOC x 2 NRO x 2 RSSAC x 2 SSAC x 2 1) Should members of non-naming communities (like IETF and ASO) be a part of MRT since our proposal only relates to the IANA for the names community? For example, the CRISP (numbers community) draft proposal does not envision names community members in its oversight mechanism. 2) Which stakeholder groups should be included beyond the ICANN community structures so that the MRT is representative of the global-multistakeholder community? For example, should IGF-MAG members have a place? 3) How do we include ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members? 4) How do we ensure membership from developing countries (not government, but civil society or technical community) - is some sort of affirmative action possible?

25 81

Clause C.7.3 - Access to Continuity and Contingency Plan
by Guru Acharya Dec. 23, 2014

Dec. 23, 2014

Alan, I agree that access to this document under clause C.7.3 is extremely essential. This document operationalises the concept of separability. And separability is the underlying foundation of our present transition proposal. I request the chairs of this CWG to directly request IANA staff for this document. While we all might agree on the potential benefits of separability (including continued accountability of IANA), many of us disagree on the potential costs of separability. By costs, I mean an assessment of all complexities required for a smooth and disruption-free transition between operators (not accounting costs per se). This document under C.7.3 will help us understand the potential social costs of separability. Without knowledge of these costs, this CWG can not make an informed choice between the two alternative proposals. ICANN has an extremely slow track record of responding to DIDP requests; making the response redundant for the use by this CWG. I strongly urge the chairs to intervene. On 23 Dec 2014 07:16, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable. This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to understand its task mandated by the Board. > > Alan > > > At 22/12/2014 09:49 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: >> >> Hi James, >> I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the information should submit the request, not staff. >> --Grace >> >> From: James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net > >> Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM >> To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org >, "Gomes, Chuck" < cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >> Cc: " cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT >> >> Hi Grace, >> >> Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG? >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad >> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria >> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT >> >> Dear all, >> For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en. >> >> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM >> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria < avri(a)acm.org> >> Cc: " cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT >> >> At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM >> To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria >> Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT >> >> I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). >> >> Alan >> >> At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> We looked into this and noted that the Continuity & Contingency Plan is confidential and cannot be distributed. >> >> Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw >> >> Best, >> Grace >> >> From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM >> To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >> Cc: " cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT >> >> Hi Avri, >> >> This was an action item for the staff from the call on 25th November. I believe they have already put in a request for the document with the IANA staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request. >> >> "ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details on 7.3 that might be available for the public and/or online" >> On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> Is that 'transition to a "successor contractor" plan' available to the CWG? >> avri >> On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> >> Alan >> Section C.7 in the current contract addresses issues of continuity of operations - particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN should have a transition to a "successor >> contractor" plan in place at the moment >> Matthew >> On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >> >> As someone whose ICANN 'job" is supporting/defending the needs of Internet users, I will point out that security and stability of the IANA functions is of paramount importance for the ALAC as well. >> I look forward to the seeing how that can be assured in a potentially disruptive switch of the IANA operator where it may be that there is no continuity of either staff or systems. >> Alan

1 0

LACNIC Videos on "What is the IANA"
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear all, Here are 4 translated videos presenting an educational primer on IANA: English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Mh3k8ooB4 French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuVpBRf2aDY Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K-WVS3uIUw Portuguese: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGhAXVKlUfo Best, Grace

1 0

Comments on Draft Transition Proposal from Nigeria Internet Registration Association
by Mary Uduma Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Hello, Please find attached comment from Nigeria Internet Registration Association, the managers of Nigeria ccTLD. .ng Mary Uduma

1 0

RySG comments
by Donna Austin Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

All Attached for information are the comments that will be submitted by the Registry Stakeholder Group on the CWG's Transition Proposal. Our comments include an alternative proposal, which we consider to be a refinement of the CWG proposal rather than a significant deviation. These comments were supported by a majority vote of the RySG (and just one vote shy of a super-majority). Thanks Donna Donna Austin RySG Representative CWG IANA Transition Process

1 0

Email from CCWG on potential areas of overlap
by Lise Fuhr Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear All, Jonathan and I have received this email from the CCWG Co-Chairs, and we would like to share it with the group to keep you updated on the coordination with the Accountability CCWG. Happy holidays Best regards, Jonathan and Lise -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert Sent: 19 December 2014 15:36 To: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mathieu Weill; Marika Konings; Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Adam Peake; Berry Cobb Subject: potential areas of overlap Dear Lise and Jonathan, first of all, let us thank you for taking the time earlier today to hold another co-ordination call between the co-chairs of the CWG and CCWG. As an efficient liaison of our groups is key to our groups work’s success, we really do appreciate your commitment to having regular - usually weekly - calls. It was with great interest that we read the document you provided titled „Potential areas for Overlap between the CWG & the CCWG“. We have shared this with our group and discussed your paper with the group during our last telephone conference. Rest assured that your input will be reviewed and responded to as a priority issue. We are also working on both identifying accountability issues and categorizing as to whether they belong to work stream 1, work stream 2 or both. Further, we do categorize items that need to be completed prior to the transition versus those that need to be committed to. However, we are cognizant that any preliminary assessment that we might come up with is subject to change because of - changes made to the proposal you published on Dec.1st, 2014 - changes made to your document on areas of overlap - new proposals and - changes due to other external and internal factors, such as evolving deliberations of our group. We are aiming at providing you with a preliminary response in the second half of January, but will update you on progress and interim results in the meantime. Our work is now split into 4 sub groups working in parallel with lively discussions on the mailing lists and weekly two hour calls, which we are continuing to have during the holiday season to advance the project as expediently as possible. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert CCWG Co-Chairs

3 3

Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions
by Steve Crocker Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Folks, The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment. Thanks, Steve Crocker for the ICANN Board of Directors

1 0