- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

REMINDER - RFP 4 Call Dec 23 / 14:00 UTC
by Robert Guerra Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear all, A quick reminder that RFP 4’s next call is Dec 23 at 14:00 UTC (details below) Ahead of the call, please review (below) list of proposed key items (1-5) for discussion for our call. Looking for any questions and/or suggestions for additional items to include in our discussion tomorrow. Regards Co-Chairs, RFP 4 Robert Guerra & Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ----- Proposed agenda for Dec 23rd RFP call * Preparation - Suggested reading ahead of tomorrow’s call. Please review the following: - Documents, notes and 3 work streams that were presented on the Dec 16th call - Draft timeline(s) circulated by Berry in his email last week (docs are attached) * Key items for discussion: 1. Work stream #1: Describing the current situation (KEY ITEMS discussed) - 1.1 Review of existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal (available @ http://www.n2a.doc.gov/files/n2a/publica2ons/ icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf ) - 1.2 Discussion of using table of contents from ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a templete to develop text on how this will change depending on RFP 3 ( Contract Co. <-> all internal, inclusion of IAP etc. ). - 1.3 Identify relevant terms in the ICANN proposal as well AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : - I ask for comments on 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 please. Lack of comments, will be interpreted as consensus to proceed using the existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a template. 2. Work Stream #2: Describing the transition path 2.1 Discussion occurred on how to describe the transition path for the different proposals from RFP 3 2.2 Draft text was presented on how to describe changes 2.3 Transition path for alternate proposals (ie. ALAC) AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : - 2.1 & 2.2 Is there any comment on ways to best ways describe the transition changes. A draft text was presented. Is there a consensus on using that as a format? Are there elements missing? Should a summary of changes be presented in some way? - 2.3. Ask for update from ALAC an others who are suggesting/proposing alternate proposals and how (or not) they are including details on transition path from existing contract to new one. 3. Work Stream #3: Testing the new proposal 3.1 Need to document and discuss risks/treats and issues that might arise to maintain security & stability AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : - 3.1 Ask that discussion start on the list and continue on the call on Dec 23 on compiling a list of risks/threats. Ask for feedback from everyone on the call tomorrow, especially those with security/stability (ie. ssac) expertise and others.. After call, will ask for staff to summarize the threats mentioned and how proposals might be tested. 3.2 Need to develop (detailed) list of key periods where testing of proposals is needed. Mention that “transition period” is a critical period where specific and detailed tests will need to be conducted. AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : - 3.2 adding on what mentioned in 3.1, ask that conversation take place on the list and on the call on Dec 23 to develop a list of key periods where proposal should be tested (& how) 4. Review of timeline 5. Next steps (next call, etc) - Next call is scheduled for Monday Dec 29, 21:00 UTC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS - Below & attached are key documents to review - 1. ICANN/IANA technical proposal http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part… <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part…> - 2. Draft of proposed timelines (word & PDF) > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > To: RFP4 <cwg-rfp4(a)icann.org> > Date: December 17, 2014 at 10:53:05 PM EST > Subject: [CWG-RFP4] Notes and Actions > > Dear all, > > Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw <https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw> > > Summary of Action Items: > ACTION: Jaap to follow up with Kim Davies. > ACTION: all -- review document and think about changes. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part… <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part…>) > COMPLETE: Berry to circulate new timeline after the call > ACTION: Co-Chairs of CWG to address whether US Bill affects timeline > COMPLETE: check the availability of time slot for 1.5h call in this slot. > > For the next calls, we'd like to suggest the following: > > RFP4 > Tuesday 23 December > 14:00 – 16:00 > RFP4 > Monday 29 December > 21:00 – 23:00 > RFP4 > Tuesday 6 January > 14:30 – 16:30 > > Not all times correspond with the 13:00-16:00 slot that Robert wanted, but we are doing to our best to not schedule overlapping calls. Please let me know off-list if you have any objections to the proposed call times. > > Best, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-rfp4 mailing list > Cwg-rfp4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp4

1 0

CWG - Public Comment summary for Thursday December 19th, 20th and 21st
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

2 submission s over the weekend - From: Keiren McCarthy - Title = Response to CWG proposal - Summary = Agrees with proposal overall but finds it has become too complex especially the MRT. Makes several recommendations to simplify. - From: Rishabh Dara - Title = Comments on Draft Transition Proposal by the CWG-Stewardship - Summary = Generally in favour - many constructive type comments on all aspects of the proposal B.

1 0

CWG On Naming Related Functions - Comments, Public Consultation on Draft Transition Proposal
by Lindeberg, Elise Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

All, -most of the comments from my colleagues in the GAC will be posted directly on the CWG list, but I will look for, and forward, comments that are posted on the GAC list. · I can see that the proposal is still "under construction" since requirements such as affordability of appeal mechanisms are not dealt with in the draft proposal. In the "Key questions and issues" paper, the ccWG says that standing to file appeals using the proposed appeals panel is still under consideration by the CWG. Effectiveness of those recourse mechanisms depend to a large extent on who can appeal a decision and on what grounds. Effectiveness, affordability and independence of appeal mechanisms are key elements of a sound accountability system for us. I don´t know whether it belongs to this WG or the other on accountability to elaborate on appeal mechanisms. · The draft proposal refers to applicable law and jurisdiction especially as regards ccTLDs. However, it does not work out in detail how to reconcile the enforcement of the IANA functions contract with decisions made at the local level notably to redelegate a ccTLD. The process for delegation and relegation of ccTLDs, including any appeal or review mechanisms, could be tested against instances where the redelegation is disputed, i.e. by the incumbent Registry operator because they are the most complex scenarios ICANN can be confronted to. · The Security and Stability Advisory Committee has just released and Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (SAC 069) which contains several recommendations as regards accountability and protection against outside political or economic influence on the IANA Functions Operator. It also recalls that the current contracts provides a legal shield for the performance of IANA functions as they relate to entities subject to U.S. Government sanctions and recommends that this is retained in future IANA Service contracts. It could be worth exploring this issue in ccWG on naming related functions. The Advisory can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2012-02-25-en Wishing you all a happy holiday season between all the upcoming calls :) Elise Best regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)npt.no<mailto:ekl@npt.no> Mobile: +47 90190947 As of January 1st 2015 NPT will be known as the Norwegian Communications Authority.

1 0

Comments from .nz on CWG proposal
by Jordan Carter Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear all Please see below our comments on the CWG's proposal. We largely support it. In particular, we believe that the CWG model transitions stewardship to the global Multistakeholder community, and that is something we strongly support. InternetNZ does not support transferring stewardship to ICANN, which is what a number of other proposals seek to do. The reasons for this are matters of principle and also practical, and explained below. Thank you to the Working Group for pulling together a workable proposal. best, Jordan PS - PDF version has been lodged in the formal comments process of ICANN, and I can send it to anyone who wants a copy. Submission to the Cross Community Working Group on Names Related Functions (CWG-IANA) on the Draft Transition Proposal 22 December 2014 Introduction This is InternetNZ's response to the public consultation on a Draft Transition Proposal from the Cross Community Working Group on Names Related Functions (the CWG-IANA), which has been developing a proposal to send to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group, InternetNZ supports a transition of stewardship of the Internet's DNS from NTIA to the global Internet community as announced on 14 March 2014. It believes that it can be achieved despite the complexities involved. The Internet community is ready to do this. *The proposal is a very good beginning. InternetNZ thanks the members and participants of the CWG-IANA for a crisp, well thought out proposal that sets out the basic minimum requirements of a workable solution.* In this response we deal with the following matters in turn: · Principles for a viable transition for the Names community · The importance of community, not ICANN, stewardship for IANA · Comments about the key elements of the CWG-IANA proposal · Timelines and the link with Accountability This response deals with Names matters and does not discuss the linkages with the other two customer groups. It is written from the perspective of a designated ccTLD manager and of an organisation with a wider agenda of supporting the open Internet and involving domestic civil society and Internet community participants in these discussions. We thank the CWG-IANA in advance for considering this input, and we would be happy to provide more detail or information if required. Contact details follow at the end of this response. Key principles Today, there is a deeply embedded principle of *distributed** stewardship* of the IANA functions. ICANN is the IANA Functions Operator; NTIA offers the Functions Contract and is essentially the Functions Administrator; and Verisign operates the Root Zone. InternetNZ supports distributed stewardship as a matter of principle and practice. Erosion of this principle creates an overly-powerful institution vulnerable to capture by a small subset of stakeholders, leading to the resources of this institution used to control, rather than support, the ongoing development of the open Internet. A second and related key principle is that of *separability.* There must be the real and effective possibility that at some future point the IANA functions can be operated by an institution other than ICANN should the global multistakeholder community require this. This possibility is key to motivating the IANA functions operator to keep in close touch with their customers and be led by them. >From this comes the third principle, the importance of *customer involvement.* Registries have the strongest possible interest in the effective operation of the IANA functions and so it is right that the proposed Customer Committee contains customers. That body must not be compromised by adding those interested in but not *directly* affected by the IANA functions. Fourth, important is *broad community stewardship* of the IANA functions. Stewardship must remain in the broad "global multistakeholder community" - for example the breadth of interests participating in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). ICANN is only one part of that community and as such would not be the appropriate vehicle for controlling the IANA functions in total. More on this point below. Finally, as a matter of principle we mention *ccTLD independence in policymaking.* Country code TLDs are to be governed consistent with *local* Internet community requirements and obligations. They are not creations of or dependent on ICANN; few global policies are required or desired. The ccTLD community recognises there are seldom one-size-fits-all solutions to its needs, and local communities have provided intensively different models for management. It is important that the stewardship model respect that autonomy and independence. InternetNZ sees these principles as: · consistent with or improvements on current practice in developing and maintaining community and private sector stewardship and operation of key Internet resources; · consistent with the requirements the NTIA has set out for accepting a transition proposal; and · embedded in the CWG-IANA's proposal as detailed so far. This principled basis explains why InternetNZ in general supports the proposal. Community stewardship Community stewardship of the IANA functions is essential, as a principle in itself and as a means to securing other principles such as distribution of powers and functions. This relates in particular to discussion of some sort of "internal to ICANN" solution being a better approach. *InternetNZ would not support a transition proposal that saw NTIA stewardship replaced with ICANN stewardship of the DNS*. The reasons for this include the following significant points: · It would erode the current distributed model & today's reality of separability which we support in principle and in practice; · It would make the possibility for future reassignment of the operation of the IANA functions theoretical at best and impossible at worst, considerably worsening the accountability situation facing IANA customers; · ICANN's track record shows that it has a fundamental cultural difficulty in accepting its primary role as a limited purpose servant of the Internet community - o in its attitudes to community attempts to control it (e.g. the debate in 2014 about the accountability side of this transition); o in its practice of top-down decision-making (e.g. the President's strategy panels, or the ongoing failure of the WHOIS review); and o in its adventures in the broader Internet Governance environment without community mandate (e.g. the NetMundial Initiative). As such, in practice it seems unlikely to be the sort of steward the community as a whole could have confidence in; · ICANN's consistent arguments over many years that the law under which it operates makes it impossible for the corporation to accept real accountability to the Internet community. If that is correct in law, ICANN can't be the overall steward. If that position is wrong and ICANN changes its mind, it will have diminished further its credibility as a reliable and dependable option for steward; · The scale of change and evidence of such change required to deal with the practical matters set out in the previous two points cannot be achieved in the timeframe required for the stewardship transition. The CWG-IANA's proposal contains a workable model that does not have these problems of principle and practice. It has gaps of detail that need to be explained and resolved before it can be accepted, but what has been produced so far is clearly preferable to a fully "internal to ICANN" model both in principle and in practice. Comments on key elements The CWG-IANA proposal is a strong one. If implemented, it would improve the situation the Names community faces in terms of reliable stewardship and accountability to mirror that enjoyed by the Numbers and Protocol communities. We endorse the elements set out in the CWG-IANA proposal at a high level (Section 3.1) and believe they are fundamental to a workable transition. They are: · Current performance of IANA functions is satisfactory · Maintaining the contract environment · Maintaining ICANN as operator for now · Not replicating ICANN's broader role in new, very narrowly focused institutions (i.e. names policy broadly remains where it is) · Separation between policymaking and IANA functions operation needs to be reinforced and strengthened The CWG-IANA's proposal is the *lightest and simplest possible institutional structure* required to allow an outcome consistent with these elements and with the NTIA's requirements. In particular we commend the CWG-IANA for dealing with operational accountability for the IANA functions, which is clearly a requirement of its Charter and is essential. In respect of the specific entities proposed by the CWG-IANA: Contract Company: · Should "own" or be the steward of the key IANA functions assets - the root zone, the IP addresses of the A root server, the domain names, the DNSSEC keys. · Needs a suitable set of indemnities from ICANN (or any future Operator) such that ICANN protects both it, and the MRT that directs its actions. · Structure and jurisdiction are important so as to prevent scope creep and make sure there is accountability. There are advantages and disadvantages to any jurisdictional choice. We look forward to seeing the future work of the CWG on this matter. Multistakeholder Review Team: · Is the appropriate body for the global multistakeholder community to exercise its stewardship. · Has a limited and narrow role which should not be extended. · There must be recognition of the work required of this body, and appropriate support given to allow effective participation across the community when required. Customer Standing Committee: · Must retain a focus on the direct customers in its membership and approach. · In particular, there should be no role for government or users' representation on this Committee. Independent Appeals Panel: · Specific requirements will need to be in place to protect ccTLD sovereignty and independence, noting that this will be vital to get right so as to secure support of the ccTLD community. There is one issue on which the proposal is silent which we recommend further work on: the Contract Company needs the ability to ensure that root zone management is conducted consistent with decisions made by the IANA Functions Operator it selects. That is not dealt with in the current proposal so far as we can see. Some other points of feedback for the CWG-IANA to consider: · A clear and transparent *audit chain and process* needs to be in place for the entire system. The certification matter and public posting of root zone change requests are useful, as is the IAP. · We look forward to further work by the CWG-IANA on what replacement if any is required for the NTIA's root zone management process administrator role (3.4.3 in the proposal), and express no view on this matter at this time. · The *costs* of maintaining the infrastructure required for effective stewardship of the IANA functions should properly fall on the IANA Functions Operator - as such, it should finance the required expenses of the CSC / MRT / Contract Company. The costs of operating the IANA functions should be largely met by the customers of those functions in a manner similar to today. · InternetNZ *supports the retention of a single integrated IANA function* across the three customer groups (names, numbers & protocols), but believes that in the event of a choice between an integrated IANA and an acceptable settlement for the Names community, the choice should fall in favour of the latter. Finally, we note that in all this work *with more detail the vision will become clearer* - important choices need to be fleshed out and we respect the fact the CWG-IANA is still progressing much of the detail. Timelines and Accountability Links The timeframe for this work is very compressed due to a desire by some to complete a complete proposal for NTIA review in June 2015, and implementation in time for the current IANA Functions Contract to expire on 30 September 2015. *InternetNZ does not believe the planned timetable is workable.* The main reason for this is that the CCWG-Accountability work, which is integral to the IANA stewardship transition and must be completed (for the IANA aspects of accountability) before the transition can be agreed, is only starting work now and cannot complete a first draft of its proposals before 15 April 2015. It seems essential that there be some possibility for all three customer groups (names, numbers & protocols) to review and if necessary adjust their proposals to the ICG once the proposed accountability environment is known. We do not see how that can be done with deadlines of January 2015 for final community proposals, and April 2015 for a first Accountability strawman. Rushing towards this September 2015 goal would require the community to be focused on the NTIA stewardship transition to the extent that other necessary and important debates aren't progressed - or that the community faces total overload and is unable to participate effectively. Neither is desirable. The NTIA has made it clear that September 2015 is a goal not a requirement. It does not seem impossible in law or in practice for a limited extension of the IANA Functions Contract between the NTIA and ICANN to be agreed if required. As such, we think the CWG-IANA should consult with the ICG and the Internet community more broadly to determine whether the current timeframe is workable - and if not, what it should be adjusted to. Conclusion The CWG has made a very good start to the Names community transition proposal. InternetNZ again thanks all members and participants, and the staff supporting this work, for the achievements so far. Fundamental to this model is community stewardship of the IANA functions. We support this strongly and commend the CWG for outlining an elegant, light-weight approach to securing this for the future development and evolution of the DNS. *InternetNZ* For further information or to offer any feedback, please contact: Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ - jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Debbie Monahan Chief Executive, Domain Name Commission - dnc(a)dnc.org.nz Jay Daley Chief Executive, NZ Registry Services - jay(a)nzrs.net.nz * This document was submitted to the CWG-IANA on 22 Dec and will be published on 23 Dec at **https://internetnz.nz/publications/submissions* <https://internetnz.nz/publications/submissions> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear all, The meeting notes, transcripts, recordings, etc have been posted to the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/DDHxAg Best, Grace From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:55 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes and action items from today's meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes from today¹s meeting. As a reminder the action items are: Action item: Everyone encouraged to provide input to the latest version of the MRT structural analysis (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M 2yk/edit?usp=sharing - Please use the "Suggest" mode, rather than the "Edit" mode, so that your changes show up in "track changes" style, along with a marginal comment box) Action item: Forward GAC letter concerning principles (Lise) Action item: Review comments received during public comment forum (all) Action item: Provide input to public comment forum by 22 December (all) Action item: Participate in the next meeting of the CWG on 30 December at 14.00 UTC (all) Attached you will find the chat transcript of today¹s meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes 18 December: Status Updates * Only updates from sub-group 3, 4 and 5 during today's meeting * RFP 3 is continuing its meetings as well as discussions on the mailing list, reviewing structural analysis of the MRT (see google doc). Next call is scheduled for Friday 19 December. CSC structural analysis document to be posted shortly. Action item: Everyone encouraged to provide input to the latest version of the MRT structural analysis (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M 2yk/edit?usp=sharing - Please use the "Suggest" mode, rather than the "Edit" mode, so that your changes show up in "track changes" style, along with a marginal comment box) * RFP 5 met for the second time this week. Group has discussed how to draft (form and structure) of text. Two layer approach - high level tabular approach to confirm whether criteria have been met as well as explanatory language. Next meeting on 30 December. * RFP 4 also met earlier this week. Initial structure for work was presented and discussed, which includes three work streams (1 - review of technical requirements, 2 - timeline, 3 - key risks / testing). Next meeting scheduled for 23 December. Participation was limited in the last meeting so some work has been pushed out to the mailing list. Presentation and Review of Work Plan (between now and 11 January) * Review of proposed meetings in December and January * Reading and review week from 22 Dec-29 Dec - will allow staff to develop a summary of the comments received. Following that, a small group of CWG volunteers will prepare a draft analysis of the comments received for CWG review. Understand the principle of separability * See also (draft) principles developed by the CWG * Aim to finalize principles by 8 January meeting (continue conversations on the mailing list, including comments received from the GAC) * Separability is included as a principle in this draft and has not been challenged by anyone to date * ALAC is of the view that it should not be a principle or core around which the proposal is built - although no objections were received in relation to the draft principles. ALAC is of the view that the same net effect can be achieved without having separability as the cornerstone of the proposal. * How is this separability (in case of dooms-day scenario) achieved in the ALAC proposal? * Separability has been part of the system from the start - why change it now? How do you ensure accountability if you do not have the ability to change the contract? ALAC is of the view that there are other ways to achieve this than a contract, including additional accountability mechansisms. * Is disagreement around how separability is built in, not necessarily around the principle itself? Yes, correct. * Agreement on separability as a principle - no agreement yet on how to implement it though * Consider developing criteria for separability Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals) * Brief overview of ALAC proposal - some of the details are left to the Acccountability CCWG as the solution is internal to ICANN (see also diagrams shared during the meeting) * Why is responsibility for accountability mechanisms deferred to CCWG while CWG charter makes clear that accountability relating to the IANA function is within scope of the CWG? * Main issue is with Contract Co. function. * Divestiture is solution should separabilty become necessary - who would order such divestiture would need to be further fleshed out (for example, membership organization), what would be the trigger point? * Consider whether RFP 4 should test the ALAC proposal? Need to wait and see what other public comments are received.

1 0

Principles Message from GAC Chair to CWG Names Co-Chairs
by Lise Fuhr Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear All, As promised at our meeting today I hereby send you a copy of the letter received from the GAC regarding the Principles. As mentioned on the meeting we will send out a new version shortly and have comments on the list. We have set a deadline for comment on 5th January and finalization on the call 8th January. Best regards, Lise

2 1

Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

I note that item 5 on the agenda for the 18 December meeting is "Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)". I also note that there has been significant discussion about the CWG Stewardship and the CCWG Accountability, their inter-relationship and co-dependency. In light of this, I would like to bring the CWGs attention to a recent e-mail on the CCWG list (copied below). Although I believe that the ALAC proposal (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg0001…) is the only such alternative presented here, it is not alone. I am not advocating the exact details of the proposal referenced in the message (see http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/ and http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl…) but it does demonstrate that we are not unique in wanting a far simpler mode for the new IANA coupled with real multistakeholder accountability in ICANN. I believe that the CCWG *WILL* deliver and I think that we need to factor that into our deliberations. Specifically, is there really a need for the complexity, cost and associated issues of Contract Co. given the same level of control could be provided by a change such as this? Alan =================== >From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> >To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:20:43 +0000 >Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF >regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority > > >This pertains to our discussion yesterday about >a permanent, cross-community "Membership" group >to hold ICANN board and management accountable >to the community. It was described this way in ><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…>draft3 >for work area 2: > >Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent >cross-community representative structure (all >ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to: > >Appoint members of Affirmation review teams >Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute >(option to use independent panel) >Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval >Approve annual proposed ICANN budget >Recall one or all ICANN Board members > >One of the groups ><http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/>proposing >a community of stakeholders as ultimate >authority posted a relevant ><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl…>Op-Ed >in a Washington paper today. Daniel Castro of >the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote: > >California state law applies since ICANN is a >registered nonprofit corporation in the state. >As such, California law allows nonprofit >organizations to have statutory members. >Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an >effective check on the ICANN board's power is to >create statutory members of ICANN with extensive >authority over the board. This authority could >include removing board members, overturning >board decisions, etc. The statutory members >would likely include the chairs of the various >ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory >committees," such as the Address Supporting >Organization (ASO) responsible for IP address >policy and the Country Code Name Supporting >Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing >the country code top-level domains. To ensure >that the statutory members do not hold too much >sway, their actions could be limited to >situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus). > >We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to >enable this modification to ICANNâs bylaws in >conformance with California law. > >Steve DelBianco >Executive Director >NetChoice > ><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org >and <http://blog.netchoice.org/>http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

7 12

Blog Update on IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All, Below is the latest blog update by Theresa Swinehart on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability tracks. -- Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd0 -5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/monthly-update-by-theresa-swinehart-3820ccd 0-5c5c-43dc-a40f-9e74d6af3598> It¹s hard to believe that 2014 is already coming to a close. This past year has been monumental towards validating the strength of the multistakeholder model, the true test beginning on March 14 with the announcement by NTIA of its intention to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions. Now at year¹s end, I am very pleased with the effort the community has made to inform and develop two global processes to achieve a successful transition. To provide a broader picture of the groups involved in each process, we designed an infographic showing the interrelation of the two processes and the flow of proposals from each. Please take time to review it. Download here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability- 12dec14-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-accountability -12dec14-en.pdf> Another great resource that has surfaced is a slide deck published by NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_manage ment_12162014.pdf> that describes its current Administrator role in the Root Zone management. To help inform transition discussions, the resource reiterates the ³clerical and administrative² role that NTIA holds in its oversight of the IANA functions. IANA Stewardship Transition Three operational communities are in the homestretch towards meeting the January 15 target deadline to respond to the ICG Request for Transition Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en .pdf> . The Names community Cross Community Working Group <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg> (CWG) met in Frankfurt <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> at the end of November, where constituent parts of the RFP were further developed. The work of each sub-section was coordinated into a preliminary draft transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e n.pdf> [PDF, 1.72 MB], which is currently up <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> through December 22. Given the progress, the CWG has stated with reasonable optimism that its proposal would be finished sufficiently close to the ICG's target deadline. Each of the five Regional Internet Registries communities has been discussing transition proposals <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-RIR-proposals-updated-201 41217.pdf> at RIR meetings, via mailing lists and through other forums. Each community has selected three members to participate on a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated -rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team> (CRISP Team) to coordinate a single proposal to submit to the ICG. The CRISP Team acknowledged minor differences among the proposals outlined by each RIR, but has since collaborated on accommodating these differences and is in the final stages of developing a draft proposal <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-16122014-c lean.pdf> , which should be published within the next few days. Then following discussions at IETF 91 and through its public mailing list, the chairs of the IANAPLAN WG <http://www.ietf.org/iana-transition.html> representing the protocol parameters community concluded that the working group had reached sufficient consensus on a draft proposal <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/> to move forward with a broader review. The draft proposal underwent an IETF-wide last call review through mid-December, and is now in the hands of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for approval. Enhancing ICANN Accountability The CCWG-Accountability charter <https://community.icann.org/x/KYMHAw> has been adopted by the GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and ASO, and the working group currently totals 150 with 26 members and 124 participants plus 30 mailing list observers. Co-chaired by Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) and Thomas Rickert (GNSO Council), the group has met twice already and will be meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/NBDxAg> every Tuesday until ICANN 52 in Singapore. The working group will also be holding one face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 January. Here is the CCWG-Accountability¹s estimated timeline for completing its work: In addition to the timeline, the CCWG has designated four sub-committees <https://community.icann.org/x/XoMQAw> for organizing the vast amount of research necessary to complete its work. Each work area has designated a Coordinator, and members and participants are currently volunteering to assist with the work. The four areas are: · Work Area 1: Review existing accountability mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 recommendations) · Work Area 2: Review input from the previous public comment period and categorize items into Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2 · Work Area 3: Review issues identified by the CWG-Stewardship · Work Area 4: Identify contingencies (especially in relation to Work Stream 1) I am very pleased to see that the group has developed effective working methods and has become comfortable with the charter over a very short period of time. This perseverance has enabled the group to work promptly and cohesively and has put them on track for the timely development of accountability recommendations for both Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2. Lastly, the Public Experts Group (PEG) has announced its selection of Advisors to the CCWG <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> . These Advisors will contribute research and advice to the working group, and will bring perspectives on global best practices on various topics ranging from Board Governance and Corporate Management to Global Ethics Frameworks and Human Rights. It is hoped that this external expertise will enrich the discussions of the working group and help to attain the level of accountability necessary for the transition. We encourage the community to stay informed and get involved in the various discussions on each process. On behalf of ICANN and its community, I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to all of the volunteers who will be working on these two processes through the upcoming holiday season. In the meantime, continue to check the ICANN website <https://www.icann.org/> , follow ICANN on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ICANN> , or like ICANN on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/icannorg?ref=ts&fref=ts> , and for quick access to all recent developments on both processes visit the transition homepage here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . Happy holidays! - TS

1 0

Questions for "Outside Counsel"? -- REPLIES REQUESTED
by Greg Shatan Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All: As previously discussed, there are several aspects of our work where we thought it would be helpful to get legal advice from independent counsel. I've been advised that in order to make this request, we should have a list of the questions we would like to put to counsel. I am starting this thread in the hopes that others in the CWG will reply with the questions they believe the CWG should put to counsel. Thank you for your contributions! Greg Shatan

10 15

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

At 18/12/2014 06:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Alan, > >In the existing proposal is MRT the policy >enforcing body or is CST? The reason I ask is >because CST would have the contract that would >provide the authority to enforce the contract. As I understand it, the only thing that the CST could do is talk nicely to IANA to attempt to rectify whatever it perceives as a problem, or as the MRT to initiate some sort of enforcement action (which the MRT would have to instruct Contract Co to do, since Contract Co is the entity holding the contract). > >Putting that aside, I would qualify your >statement as follows: âpolicy enforcing body >for policy related to the IANA naming functionsâ. Yes, of course. That is the scope of this discussion. Alan > >Chuck > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:42 PM >To: Lindeberg, Elise; Lise Fuhr; 'Donna Austin'; >'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT > >Balanced MS representation is essential. >Although the MRT is not a policy setting body, >it IS a policy enforcing body and as such, it >needs balanced representation. Alan > >At 17/12/2014 09:04 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote: > > >Dear all, > >I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and >Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding >swelling out of proportions - but I donÃ¢t >see an argumentent for registries (ccs and gs) >having greater rather than equal representation >on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a >model with a distinction between the Customer >Standing Committee (CSC) - who will evaluating >IANA reports and performance of the IANA >function for the community at large, based on a >direct customer relationship and the >Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to >be real Multistakeholder with en equally >balanced representation from the community at >large. Operational stability, reliability of the >IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA >function is of the outmost importance for the whole community. > >Best > >Elise

2 1