- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Stress Tests for IANA transition proposals
by Greg Shatan Nov. 28, 2014

Nov. 28, 2014

All, Further to our recent discussions of stress tests, scenarios and the like, I am forwarding to the group an email from Steve DelBianco of the Business Constituency with a number of examples of stress tests and links to further discussion. This is particularly relevant to RFP4 (which requests a "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements") and RFP3 (to inform our discussion of various alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM Subject: Stress Tests for IANA transition proposals To: "gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Steve Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar(a)google.com>, " skawaguchi(a)fb.com" <skawaguchi(a)fb.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette(a)cov.com>, Rick Lane <RLane(a)21cf.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com> Greg — as you requested on our call today, here are ’stress tests’ from the BC's June comments (link <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-reply-comment-on-Enha…> to comments). The stress tests in a standalone doc are also available at http://bizconst.org/StressTests Some of these stress tests relate to general ICANN accountability concerns. But several are relevant to the IANA role you are looking at for Naming Functions (Numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, in red below): The BC recommends use of scenarios, or ‘stress tests’ to help design and evaluate ICANN accountability structures and mechanisms. Today, ICANN is an effective organization that generally performs its core functions. Although it can be uncomfortable to imagine a scenario where a future ICANN fails dramatically or is confronted with a serious threat, we should consider challenging scenarios that could arise, such as those described below: 1. Scenario: ICANN unilaterally cancels the Affirmation of Commitments, which it may do with just 120 days notice. And if not outright cancellation, ICANN could refuse to implement recommendations of an Affirmation review. Presently, the discipline imposed by needing to win the IANA contract forces ICANN to adhere to the only external accountability it has today: the Affirmation of Commitments. If the Affirmation is to remain part of the new ICANN accountability framework, it is essential that the leverage formerly conveyed by the IANA contract be replaced with a new mechanism, which may or may not include parties external to ICANN. 2. Scenario: ICANN takes steps to eliminate its legal presence in a nation where Internet users and domain registrants are planning to seek legal remedies for ICANN’s failure to enforce contracts. This scenario is not about ICANN opening new offices around the world as part of its global outreach. Rather, it is about ICANN creating a new legal entity distinct from its present status as a California non-profit corporation, and eventually relocating its legal presence. ICANN’s current corporate presence in California creates legal certainty for businesses; presence in a new jurisdiction might not. 3. Scenario: ICANN becomes financially insolvent, due to lawsuits or gross mismanagement. However unlikely, this scenario should explore the orderly continuation of IANA functions and ICANN contract enforcement in the event ICANN could not maintain the necessary qualified technical resources. 4. Scenario: ICANN expands scope beyond its limited technical mission by using domain registration fees to fund grants for developing nations or other worthy causes. ICANN has the power to determine fees charged to TLD applicants, registry operators, registrars, and registrants, so it presents a big target for any Internet-related cause seeking funding sources. This scenario should examine how a fully independent ICANN could be held to its limited technical mission, and whether its fees and spending are subject to external accountability. 5. Scenario: ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community leaders. This scenario actually came close to occurring when ICANN management did not respond to recommendations of its own Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) regarding risks of new TLDs interacting with security certificates and internal domains already in use. SSAC recommendations from prior years were not acted upon until late 2013, after significant pressure from a root server operator, Internet service providers, and system integrators. In the actual event, ICANN responded with a collision mitigation plan. This scenario should assess how proposed new accountability mechanisms could respond to similar technical risks expressed before a TLD delegation, as well as reactive responses to problems reported after a delegation. 6. Scenario: Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting. Today GAC adopts formal advice according to its Operating Principle 47: “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”13 But the GAC may at any time change its procedures to use majority voting, where each government has equal voting power, such as in the UN and ITU. (Notably, only 61 governments were present at the GAC meeting in Singapore during March 2014, where several GAC members expressed dissatisfaction with the multistakeholder process and consensus threshold for new gTLD program advice.) While ICANN’s board is not strictly obligated to follow GAC advice, this scenario should assess how ICANN could respond to GAC advice with strong majority support but less than consensus. This scenario might also indicate need to amend ICANN bylaws regarding deference to GAC advice that is not supported by consensus. 1. Scenario: As described in scenario 6, the GAC might issue majority-supported advice instructing ICANN to suspend a TLD that refuses to remove domains with content critical of governments (e.g., .corrupt ). Today, this kind of censorship routinely occurs at the edge of the Internet when governments block domestic access to websites, such as Turkey blocking Twitter. This scenario envisions censorship moving from the edge to the core of the internet – the root table of TLDs used by the entire world. The stress test would ask how a proposed accountability mechanism could respond if a future ICANN board bowed to GAC advice for censorship at the root of the DNS. 2. Scenario: ICANN attempts to re-delegate a gTLD because the registry operator is determined to be in breach of its contract. The registry operator challenges the breach determination and obtains an injunction from a national court. What procedures or appeal mechanisms would be used by the entity charged with maintenance and publication of the root zone? 3. Scenario: A court grants an injunction against delegation of a new gTLD that’s a plural version of another TLD that has already been delegated. (for example, .hotels following after .hotel, or .coms following after .com) The court may have ruled on infringement of rights or on arbitrary and capricious behavior by ICANN, but that’s beside the point. The point of this scenario is to ask how a post-transition ICANN and IANA would be empowered to respond to a court injunction granted by a jurisdiction where ICANN has a legal presence. Would ICANN/IANA be able to defer a delegation until court proceedings were concluded? How would ICANN/IANA be accountable for its decision if it ignored the court injunction? 4. Scenario: A government telecom minister instructs ICANN to re-delegate a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), despite objections from many current registrants and user communities in the country concerned. Faced with this re-delegation request, what response options and measures could be available to ICANN and the entity charged with maintenance of the root zone? -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

7 10

Notes & Action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Nov. 27, 2014

Nov. 27, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today's meeting. As a reminder: * Everyone is requested to contribute to questions that would need to be called out as part of the public comment forum. Deadline for all input on the questions & draft proposal - no later than Saturday 29 November at 12.00 UTC. Co-chairs will have the authority to take that input and formulate the questions and issues that CWG wants input on. (for your convenience, you'll find the latest version of the draft proposal attached) Best regards, Marika Notes 27/11: Welcome & roll call * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect Review of F2F meeting * Good representation and participation both from members as well as participants (over 40 participants) * Substantial progress made, including framework for responding to RFP3 * Chairs statement published after the meeting to communicate outcome of meeting more broadly Update from RFP4 * First call earlier this week on RFP4 - awaiting outcome of RFP3 * Considering how to move forward on items 1 and 2 which may be less dependent on RFP3 * Next call scheduled for Friday 28 November at 13.00 UTC. * What is expected from RFP4 as part of the publication of the draft proposal on 1 December? Review Draft Proposal Section 3 Comments * ALAC to provide written comments - concerns regarding jurisdication of contracting entity (problematic to find one); capture of whole process; costs - how is this entity going to be funded, especially if ICANN shouldn't be part of the picture; integration problems with other proposals; who convenes PRT, prevent capture; likelihood of acceptance by NTIA. Basically some of the components have questions that do not have obvious answers - several of these together may question the overall proposal. * Consider calling out some of these questions out as part of the public comment forum. For example, jurisdiction of contracting authority; formation of PRT; stress test idea - are there any items in the structures that leave it open for capture; * Not useful to raise acceptability to the NTIA unless it relates to the criteria set by the NTIA. * Focus on acceptance by naming community - ICG will worry about how it fits together with other proposals. * How will contracting entity take action if it has no staff? Actions could be delegated to PRT or administrator / secretariat function for contracting entity? Principle is that PRT provides oversight and direction to Contracting Entity. * Paper is a starting point - there are issues that will need to be addressed, but having a document will allow for soliciting input. * Focus should be on finding solutions for issues identified, not just calling issues out. Work from within the group, not from the outside. Need to be part of the dialogue. * Contracting entity questions: jurisdiction, staffing to carry out its responsibilities, who will be paying for it, is it a viable plan? PRT would be responsible for taking actions. Regarding funding, various models could be explored. * Contracting entity - formal legal authority. Created with very limited mandate. In articles and bylaws it would have prohibition against changing bylaws unless certain steps are taken that involve the PRT/multistakeholder community. * Consider opening different email threads on questions identified * Need some independent legal contracting expertise to provide input - should be started now. How can indepenent legal advice be obtained and funded? * Accountability - chairs will meet with co-chairs of the accountability CWG to discuss linkage and commence co-ordination between two groups. * Approval function - may no longer be necessary. Has the proposal thought the issue through, also per the discussions on the mailing list. May be another issue to be called out as part of the public comment forum. * Proposed modifications to the document as well as questions that need to be called out as part of the public comment forum - objective of today's conversation. * Need to agree on sign-off moment for chairs to publish document * Flag open issues / questions - either in document or as part of public comment forum. * Transition implications could be an other area to solicit input on. * Is it possible to flesh out composition of PDT and relationship to customer standing committee as part of draft proposal? See also comments from Avri on the mailing list. Could be convened on short notice if issue arises, but probably formally convenes once a year? Would need to define number of seats, not necessarily which individuals would occcupy those seats, but will need to be multistakeholder. Term 'periodic' may be misleading as PRT is expected to be reactive between formal review moments. * CSC focused on direct customers, possibly with a couple of additional experts /liaisons (non-registry per se, but experts in technical / operational issues that may occur in the execution of the IANA functions). Scope and deliniation between CSC and PRT should be further defined. * Guide public comments on preferred way these should come back to facilitate review by CWG. * Need to define who has standing to appeal to independents appeals panel. * Monitoring of how policy is implemented - how is that done? * Agreement to keep on moving on the current timetable, although consideration will need to be given with regards to the linkage with the accountability work. Action item: contribute to questions that would need to be called out as part of the public comment forum. Deadline for all input on the questions & document - no later than Saturday 12.00 UTC. Co-chairs will have the authority to take that input and formulate the questions and issues that CWG wants input on. Webinars * Co-chairs leading / presenting, supported by RFP Leads * Will be scheduled for: * 3 December from 7:00 - 8:30 UTC * 4 December from 12:30 - 14:00 UTC * 4 December from 16:00 - 17:30 UTC * All CWG members and participants encouraged to participate and promote webinars

1 0

Customer Service Panel mandate may be too limited
by Avri Doria Nov. 27, 2014

Nov. 27, 2014

Hi, in reading the draft I have an issue with the mandate of the CSC, but it may be just a clarification question. > . Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - The CSC would receive IANA > Operator reports, evaluate these for the PRT and the community at > large and escalate any significant issues to the PRT. The CSC, which > would report to the PRT, would be primarily made up of a small number > of representatives of registry operators, as well as liaisons from > other SO/AC's and potentially other stakeholder groups (exact > composition to be determined). I see this as a system alarm feature. They review that status of the function in a steady state model and raise alarms when there are problems that need to be dealt with. While I think that customer issues, such as SLAa, are cricially important I think we may need other alarms such as: - stability and security alarms - root server issue alarms - implementation inconsistent with established policy alarms. I think that fact that this group has a multistakeholder composition is important in perhaps resolving this. What I think may be more importnat is to make sure that these multistakeholder liaisons and reps are experts with the expereince to be able to spot these issues and raise the alarm flag on issues beyond SLA based customer issues. While the draft does not explicitly preclude raising these sorts of issues, the predominantly customer focus may limit the perceived mandate. Since the PRT is both intermittent and not necessarily in a position to notice these issues, they would need to be raised by someone. They could be raised by the larger community, but that channel will be unpredictable and probably have a low signal to noise ratio. I thus think these sorts of considerations should be included in the CSC ([concerns] standing committee?) avri

1 0

Proposed Agenda and Documents to Review
by Grace Abuhamad Nov. 26, 2014

Nov. 26, 2014

Dear all, Please review the attached documents and proposed agenda for the call on 27 November at 11:00 UTC. 1. Welcome & Roll Call 2. Review of F2F meeting & Project Plan (project plan attached for your review) 3. Update from RFP4 Call 4. Review Draft Proposal (attached for your review) > * Review draft proposal (which includes RFP1, 2, 3) > * Identify Key Issues for Public Comment 5. Webinar Planning (3-4 December) 6. Review of Action Items 7. AOB Best, Grace

1 0

Legal Mechanisms for Governing the Transition of Key Domain Name Functions (CIGI/Paper)
by Robert Guerra Nov. 26, 2014

Nov. 26, 2014

The Global Commission on Internet Governance released a paper yesterday on "Legal Mechanisms for Governing the Transition of Key Domain Name Functions to the Global Multi-stakeholder Community". Below is a link to the paper. http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_paper_no3.pdf regards Robert Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper No. 3 SERIES: GLOBAL COMMISSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPER SERIES BY: AARON SHULL, PAUL TWOMEY, AND CHRISTOPHER S. YOO PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 26, 2014 The US government has announced that it is prepared to unilaterally relinquish its historical control of the key technical functions that make up the modern-day Internet. This control stems from the foundational role played by the United States in the creation of the Internet, and has been exercised through the law of contract over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Under the existing contractual arrangement, ICANN has been accountable to the US government for the performance of these functions. However, if the US government is no longer party to this agreement, then to whom should ICANN be accountable? This paper, from CIGI and Chatham House’s Global Commission on Internet Governance, examines the existing contractual obligations that make up many of the core tenets of contemporary multi-stakeholder Internet governance. The authors maintain that these core principles should be preserved during the changeover by, first, transitioning the existing contractual accountabilities held by the US government through the law of contract to the existing customers of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority services, creating direct accountability for the performance of those functions between the organization performing those services and the organizations using them. And second, in order to increase support within the broader community, modest revisions could be made to ICANN’s independent review process to expand the grounds of review, allowing the review tribunal to hear additional cases on a broader range of complaints, with expanded powers of administrative review of decision-making processes.

1 0

The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions - Initial Draft of Proposal
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 26, 2014

Nov. 26, 2014

Dear All, Following on from the Chairs' Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> on Frankfurt Face-to-Face Meeting, we are pleased to attach an initial draft of the Proposal from the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions. Whilst this draft follows from two full days of work in Frankfurt, as well as significant teleconference and e-mail communications, it remains work in progress and reflects the work of the CWG to date. Our target is, of course, to ultimately respond in full to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en .pdf> . We envisage discussing this draft during the meeting of the CWG at 11h00 UTC tomorrow and additionally on the CWG's email list/s. The short term objective is to get a revised draft version of this proposal prepared and in circulation for public comment on or by 1 December 2014. Thank you for giving this the attention it deserves to receive and we look forward to working with you to further develop this draft prposal. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Co-chairs, Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions

1 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments on IANA Transition Flow Chart
by Marika Konings Nov. 25, 2014

Nov. 25, 2014

Thanks, Donna. I've updated the flow chart (see attached) in relation to your comments on pages 1, 2 and 4 which I believe are minor changes and in line what was discussed in Frankfurt (on page 4, I changed 'prepare' to 'post' as I think that aligns with the intent of your comment?). In relation to your comments on page 5, those sound like details that may be better suited for the actual written proposal and not necessarily the flow chart? I've posted those comments here below so that it may be easier for others to review and comment. Best regards, Marika Page 5 - Entering into Contract (Transition) - Comments from Donna Austin: * Can we confirm that what we mean by commence the contracting process includes the development of a contract or agreement to replace the existing arrangement between ICANN and NTIA. We should be explicit. * I'd like to see a step in here that has the Review Team review the current contract IANA Functions contract as a starting point -- commencing community consultations seems unguided. From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Thursday 20 November 2014 17:37 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments on IANA Transition Flow Chart All I have a few comments on the IANA Transition Flow Chart that I've attached here for 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: Donna Austin Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2014 5:31 PM To: Marika Konings (marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>) Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>); Bart Boswinkel (bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>) Subject: Marika I've made some comments on the attached. Let me know if you can't access the comments. Thanks Donna

6 6

FW: [ianatransition] A new proposed US bill?
by Camino.MANJON＠ec.europa.eu Nov. 25, 2014

Nov. 25, 2014

Dear all, This has been shared today via the IANA transition list. Apologies for cross-posting. Best regards Camino From: Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> Date: November 20, 2014 at 11:21:50 EST To: "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" <ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>> Cc: "Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu" <rhill(a)alum.mit.edu<mailto:rhill@alum.mit.edu>> Subject: [ianatransition] A new proposed US bill? Reply-To: <rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> Does anybody know anything about the attached? Best, Richard

9 14

GAO looking into IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan Nov. 23, 2014

Nov. 23, 2014

Thought this article in The Register might be of interest: First Congress, now top govt watchdog digs into ICANN's internet grab http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/gao_questions_into_iana_transition/ Greg

1 0

Chair's statement on IANA Stewardship Transition CWG on Naming Related Functions Face-to-Face meeting
by Lise Fuhr Nov. 21, 2014

Nov. 21, 2014

Dear All, Thank you for a couple of very productive days in Frankfurt. In link below you find our statement regarding our Face-to-Face Meeting: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en We wish the ones travelling a safe travel home. Kind regards, Jonathan and Lise

1 0