- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

CWG - Public Comment summary for Thursday December 18th
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All, > 3 submission s yesterday - From: Philip Sheppard ( Director General Brand Registry Group) - Title = Brand Registry Group comments on the CWG draft transition proposal - Summary = Detailed comments on the proposal. Recommends BRT and other similar organizations should be considered as members of the MS outside of ICANN - From: Kathryne Badura ( External Relations Coordinator- Enforcement International Trademark Association (INTA)) - Title = Comments of the International Trademark Association Internet Committee - Summary = Comments on short time to comment vs size of proposal. Supports most aspects but also not against the alternative proposal but would require significant changes to ICANN accountability and a binding arbitration mechanism, which are required regardless of this alternative proposal. - From: Barbara P. Wanner ( Vice President, ICT Policy U.S. Council for International Business) - Title = USCIB Comments on CWG Draft Transition Proposal on IANA Naming Functions - Summary = Comments on short time to comment vs size of proposal. IANA currently works well. Composition of MRT and CSC critical elements to evaluate such a proposal . Better to be late and get it right vs rushing this . B.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

So well put. Thank you Bertrand - well said. (and, yes I agree 100%) Hollly On Fri 19/12/14 4:38 AM , Bertrand de La Chapelle bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com sent: > Milton, > As I mentioned on the call, we need to be careful even when we label > this "internal to iCANN" solution. Because we then confuse, as we too > often do, ICANN staff, ICANN Board and ICANN community. > I think what people exploring alternatives or potential improvements > mean is that they want to build upon the existing building blocks of > the ICANN community rather than something entirely external. > One of the arguments that I think underpins this effort is the > perceived vulnerability of any entirely new, unfunded and unstaffed > architecture that would in many ways resemble the vulnerability of the > early ICANN. > Just to try and clarify the terms of the debate. > B. > > "_Le plus beau métier des hommes, cest dunir les hommes_ ", Antoine > de Saint Exupéry > ("_There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans_") > > BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE > > Internet border:none"> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Bertrand > > Correction accepted: I should say the “internal to ICANN > solution”…. > > > > ;-) > > > > FROM: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] > SENT: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:10 AM > TO: Milton L Mueller > CC: Alan Greenberg; CWG Stewardship > SUBJECT: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals > > > > Milton, > > > > can I respectfully but firmly ask you to refrain from labeling people > who have concerns with the complexities of the currently discussed > architecture as "advocates of ICANN controlling everything". > > > > You know it is not true and are too well versed in these discussions > not to see that the issues are a bit more complex than that. > > > > Such an attitude does not serve the feeling of mutual respect and > trust that I would like to prevail in designing a community > solution. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Bertrand > > > > "_Le plus beau métier des hommes, cest dunir les hommes_", Antoine > de Saint Exupéry > ("_There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans_") > > BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE > > Internet > font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#262626">email bdelachapelle@internet > jurisdiction.net > > email bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com > > twitter @IJurisdiction [4] | @bdelachapelle [5] > > mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 [6] > > www.internetjurisdiction.net [7] > > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Interesting that Shawn’s membership proposal (the one published in > The Hill) is put forward as something “simpler” than the CWG > proposal. Though I am sympathetic to this proposal, establishing a > membership would be an extremely complicated and drawn-out change, > fraught with all kinds of unanticipated implications and > implementation difficulties. > > > > Likewise, Alan is suggesting that a set of yet-unknown changes coming > out of an incomplete process is also “less complicated.” That is > not a supportable claim. It would be more accurate to say that the > separability we propose here dramatically simplifies the work of the > CCWG-Accountability. > > > > Del Bianco’s “cross-community membership group” (described at > the end of Alan’s message below) is another proposal mentioned. That > would be an alternative board that could second-guess ICANN’s board > in numerous ways and would create a competing power center. The > complications caused by such a structure are __enormous__, far more so > than the Contract Co. It is interesting that advocates of ICANN > controlling everything see such problems with the MRT but no such > problems with a committee that not only mirrors the composition of the > MRT but has an unrestricted mandate to overrule the board. > > > > --MM > > > > FROM: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Alan Greenberg > > > Although I believe that the ALAC proposal ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg0001 > 1.html[8] ) 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/ > [9] and > http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl > an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[10]), 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 > To: Accountability Cross Community > 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 draft3 [11] 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 proposing [12] a community of stakeholders as > ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed [13] 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 boards 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 ICANNâ€™s bylaws in conformance with California > law. > > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > > http://www.NetChoice.org [14] and http://blog.netchoice.org [15] > > +1.202.420.7482 [16] > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship [17] > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction > [2] https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle > [3] http://www.internetjurisdiction.net > [4] https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction > [5] https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle > [6] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%203 > 2[7] http://www.internetjurisdiction.net > [8] > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg0001 > 1.html[9] > http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/ > [10] > http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl > an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[11] > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou > ntability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDat > e=1418610739000&api=v2[12] > http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/ > [13] > http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl > an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[14] http://www.netchoice.org/ > [15] http://blog.netchoice.org/ > [16] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/tel:%2B1.202.420.7482 > [17] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

1 0

CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 17th
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

All, > 1 submission yesterday - From: Dean Papa (notes affiliation as Symantec Corporation) - Title = IANA Global DNS - Security Posture - Summary = What security standards IANA is following or will follow (names a number of these)

1 0

Notes and action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the notes from today's 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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7… - 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 today's 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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7… - 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

Op-Ed from The Hill
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Here is a link to an Op-Ed that some may find interesting. It probably more directly relates to the Accountability CCWG but accountability mechanisms like this were put in place overall in ICANN, it could impact our proposed solution. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl… Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 2

Proposed Agenda for 11th CWG meeting on Thursday 18 December at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the 11th CWG meeting on Thursday 18 December at 11:00 UTC: Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Status Updates 3. Presentation and Review of Work Plan (between now and 11 January) Announce "reading and review week" from 22 Dec-29 Dec 4. Understand the principle of separability 5. Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals) 6. Review of Action Items 7. AOB

1 1

CWG - Public Comment summary for Tuesday December 16th
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 17, 2014

Dec. 17, 2014

All, > 1 submission yesterday - From: Alan Greenberg for ALAC as a draft (final to come later) - Title = ALAC Statement and Alternative Proposal - Summary = Contract Co = opposes, MRT = supports + significant reservations, CSC = supports + some reservations, IAP = strongly supports

1 0

Slides for RFP 4 call today
by Robert Guerra Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Attached are the slides I’ll be using to guide the conversation in the RFP 4 call today. regards Robert

1 0

CWG - Public Comment summary for Monday December 15th
by Bernard Turcotte Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

All, > 1 submission yesterday from Dr. Eberhard W Lisse (who is the manager for the .NA ccTLD) - Essentially states that the transition should be to ICANN only and that ICANN should enter into contractual arrangements with all ccTLDs to compensate for intellectual property which cannot be passed on from the USG to ICANN with respect to the Root Zone (according to this email).

1 0

[Cwg-rfp5] RFP5 seeking more members and we have a coordinator!
by Lise Fuhr Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear All, The RFP5 sub-group had the first meeting Friday December 12. Cheryl Langdon-Orr volunteered to be coordinator for the group, and Avri Doria will be the liaison between this group and RFP3 and RFP4. Since this group only has 5 people listed as members (Avri hasn't signed up yet but was on the call.) - we urge some more of you to join the group. Please send an email to Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org if you want to be a part of the RFP5 sub-group. The assignment of RFP5 is to describe how the proposal meet the requirement from NTIA - you can see this below. "V. NTIA Requirements Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five requirements: . Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; . Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; . Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA functions; . Maintain the openness of the Internet; . The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA functions. Note: CWG-RFP3 and 4 should have considered this in their work and this should only be a final sanity check to produce the text confirming this requirement once 3 and 4 are completed." Best regards, Lise

2 1