- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int
by Grace Abuhamad May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill. On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship. > >I note David Conrad's comment regarding E.910 at: > >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002863.html > >David says: > >"Well, it might have been the aspiration of folks who attended the E.int >(later E.910) ITU meetings in Geneva (which did not include ICANN staff to >my knowledge < I was general manager of IANA at that time so I probably >would've known)." > >Actually the workshop that kicked off the work was co-hosted by ITU-T and >ICANN, see: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/icann.html > >It was co-chaired by the President and CEO of ICANN and a senior official >from WIPO, see: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/index.html > >As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated. ICANN provided an >input to the workshop. > >Further discussions were held in an editor's group that was open to all, >and >whose outputs were publicly available. See for example: > > http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0167/en > >As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated in at least some of >those meetings. > >"That was a long time ago and many things have changed. I personally don't >think it should have any bearing on how .INT is dealt with >post-transition." > >I doubt that the requirements of "organizations established by >international >treaties" have changed since 2005, so I don't understand why the >requirements formulated by those organizations, and set forth in E.910, >should not have any bearing in how .INT is dealt with. > >Anybody who is interested in the history of .int might wish to have a look >at the documents at: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/documents/index.html > >and at: > > http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0168/en > >Best, >Richard >

1 0

Sidley documents
by Lise Fuhr May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Dear CWG, The chairs find that these documents are useful for the group to see, if you haven't already seen them on the Client Committee list. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #44 - 5 May
by Brenda Brewer May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #44 - 5 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772821 Action Items Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes) Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page Notes Useful Links for CWG-Stewardship * View submissions received (3 so far): <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1…> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1… * Public comment webpage: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… * Webinar announcement: <https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw Notes for meeting #44: 1. Opening remarks * This is a management call to agree on outstanding issues and who is dealing with them, etc. The goal is to get everyone on the same page. * We need to continue working during the public comment, but incorporate the submissions at the same time. * Have been asked to do additional webinars and there will be two more tomorrow. Please make sure to recirculate the announcement so that we can get as much attendance as possible. 2. CCWG dependencies and the new CCWG draft proposal * CCWG-Accountability published their draft yesterday: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…. * Chairs coordinated with the CCWG-Acct chairs and Sidley to make sure that the CWG-Stewardship dependencies were properly addressed. * CCWG-Acct will be on Thursday call and we can ask them questions directly then (meeting #45). 3. Sidley's Punch List (including DT-A and DT-F status) * Punch List highlights priority items for discussion (as part of refining the CWG proposal) * Some areas of work can be best dealt with by existing DTs, but chairs were relunctant to create new DTs and/or spread the work out to all DTs considering the timeline. * Three big issues: determining PTI legal status; determining size and composition of PTI Board; and determining scope of PTI Board role. * Discussion on integrating IFR into the AoC review structure --> the IFR is not an AoC review per se, but it's a review of the same standing as the AoC reviews (it's a comparison). * DT-C will address questions assigned to it. * DT-M will also address their questions * DT-A will continue its work and address its questions as part of its work * Note that "Separation Review" will be renamed "Separation Process". Possible creation of a Design Team to work on separation process as an exception. Avri will lead the group, with some help from DT-N, but no need to create new mailing list for the work. * DT-F will reconvene to address authorization of RZM changes Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes) 4. Section IV Staff to draft sections IV, V, VI, taking input and guidance from CWG on mailing list and during CWG meetings. 5. Public comments * 3 comments received so far. * PTI as a separate entity is getting most feedback. Some think it's not helpful and some think it's not separate enough. * Staff will propose a public comment template/ work approach for meeting on Tuesday next week. Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page 6. AOB No issues raised.

1 0

Updated Webinar Slides
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear all, The webinar slides have been updated. The updates include: an updated number of participants and an corrected length of public comment period (28 not 30 days). The changes are minor, but please use these slides in your outreach moving forward. Best, Grace

1 0

REMINDER: tomorrow! WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

All Please recirculate this announcement to your communities. We want to make sure as many people as possible can take advantage of the webinar tomorrow and Thursday. Thank you Grace Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en#> The Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) released its 2nd draft proposal for public comment on 22 April <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0 4-22-en> . Following the opening of the public comment proceeding, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs hosted two briefing webinars on 24 April <https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw> . The briefing webinars on 24 April focused on the CWG-Stewardship work process, development of the 2nd draft proposal, and provided an overview of the contents and proposed structural model. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs will now host a follow-up series of webinars to brief interested community members on the content of the 2nd draft proposal, and to respond to questions that have surfaced since the briefings on 24 April. These two webinars may help further inform community submissions in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. These two webinars will be held at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 6 May from 13:00 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150506T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 7 May from 06:00 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150507T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana/> . If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer(a)icann.org and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw> . Further information For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

1 0

Two additional webinars on 6-7 May
by Grace Abuhamad May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Following a request from our GAC member Elise Lindeberg and the two briefing webinars on 24 April <https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw> (last week), the Chairs are going to hold two additional webinars on 6-7 May. The announcement will be posted within the next 24h, but I wanted to share the information with the group now. The two additional webinars will be held on: 6 May from 13:00 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150506T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) 7 May from 06:00 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150507T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) These webinars will focus more on the content of the proposal and less on the work process that led to the development of the 2nd draft proposal. The main value of these webinars is that they will allow for further questions and answers from the community, while still giving the community enough time to submit comments in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. Brenda will send calendar notices to the group with call details. Talk to you all on the CWG call on Thursday, Grace

8 32

Agenda for Tuesday at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

Dear all, Please see below the agenda for tomorrow¹s call (at 17:00 UTC). I¹ve also attached the Sidley Punch list for your review before the call: Agenda 1. Opening remarks 2. CCWG dependencies and the new draft proposal from CCWG 3. Sidley¹s Punch List (including DT-A and DT-F status) 4. Section IV 5. Public comments 6. AOB Best, Grace

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Greg Shatan May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Hi, I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability. Best, Ed Morris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

5 8

Fwd: [independent review] [Info] "Controlling Internet infrastructure"
by Greg Shatan May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

FYI. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Post <david.g.post(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [independent review] [Info] "Controlling Internet infrastructure" To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "wp2-independentreview(a)icann.org" <wp2-independentreview(a)icann.org>, " wp2(a)icann.org" <wp2(a)icann.org> Cc: Danielle Kehl <kehl(a)newamerica.org> All [Apologies for cross-posting to the various lists] Danielle Kehl and I have just published a background paper on the IANA transition for the Open Technology Institute - < http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/> http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/ There probably isn't a great deal in there that those of you who are already participants on this list are unfamiliar with. The target audience comprises those people who have not been following DNS policy matters and who know nothing or next-to-nothing about ICANN, or IANA, or the DNS. We hope we've filled a gap in the existing writings on the subject, something that can help someone who is completely unfamiliar with the territory to understand just what is going on with the IANA transition, and why it matters as much as we think it does for the Internet going forward -- Needless to say, please feel free to re-circulate to anyone you think might find it useful - even your local Congressperson! And comments etc. are always welcome - There will be a second piece coming out shortly that will dive more deeply into the specifics of the various proposals now under consideration, with particular attention on the "accountability" discussions - Regards, David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ wp2-independentreview mailing list wp2-independentreview(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-independentreview

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May
by Seun Ojedeji April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Apr 2015 18:49, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > I agree with you that ccTLD redelegations can be more sensitive than gTLD delegations, I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed. Do you disagree? > > SO: +1 to this as well (I presume as directed mean based on policies/guidelines). A question one may want to ask is whether the current IANA department has not been "editing the zone file as directed"(using your words) Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0