- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Board workshop presentations associated with the IANA transition
by Seun Ojedeji April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Forwarding this to the CWG as I think it's useful and relevant. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: 27 Apr 2015 03:18 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board workshop presentations associated with the IANA transition To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" < accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Hello All, At the Board workshop in Los Angeles yesterday we received a briefing from • Andrew Sullivan, (IAB) • Jonathan Robinson, Co-Chair, CWG-Stewardship and GNSO Chair • Jari Arkko, ICG Member and IETF Chair • Izumi Okutani, Chair, CRISP Team • Axel Pawlik, NRO Chair on the status of their work on the proposals for the IANA transition. The briefings were recorded and transcribed, and are available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-workshop-community-panel-intro-… I have attached the transcript. If the CCWG would like to brief the Board prior to Buenos Aires, I can arrange for that. I will also coordinate a response from the Board to the CCWG report as part of the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Please Circulate: Announcement and Public Comment page for the 2nd Draft!
by Grace Abuhamad April 23, 2015

April 23, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship Ambassadors, Here are two important links to circulate as widely as the multistakeholder model can reach: * Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en * Public Comment page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04 -22-en Also, we have about 30 people registered for each of the webinars tomorrow, but it would be great to recirculate the webinar announcement again as well: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en Thank you! Grace 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#> Forum Announcement:Comment Period Opens onDate:22 April 2015 Categories/Tags:IANA Stewardship Transition Purpose (Brief):The ICANN Cross Community Working Group responsible for the naming related portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG-Stewardship)1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#foot1> seeks public comment on its 2nd draft proposal for the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions Contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce's NTIA to the global multistakeholder community. The draft proposal has been prepared in order to pave the way for a response (the Final Proposal) to the IANAStewardship Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals.Though less than the required 40-day minimum, this Public Comment period has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders. Public Comment Box Link:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-20 15-04-22-en 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#note1> In March 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship role of the IANA Functions and related Root Zone Management. ICANN was called upon to facilitate this process, and in June 2014, after a series of community consultations, ICANN announced the creation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA Functions. The ICG announced its Request for Proposals in September 2014, available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en.

2 1

Final Version for Publication (redline)
by Grace Abuhamad April 23, 2015

April 23, 2015

Sending this note on behalf of the Chairs Grace Dear All, Attached is the final document (v3.5) to be published shortly as the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal. Changes to the document include edits and suggestions that were sent to the mailing list following circulation of the document after yesterday¹s call (v3.4). In addition, in the interest of time, the Chairs had to make a few editorial decisions as listed below in order of appearance: * We have synchronised the Section III introductory text with the text we included in our Foreword/Executive Summary. * We have removed the paragraph on the possible PTI Board roles, since (a) this text was suggested by Sidley Austin to be optional and (b) it is dependent on the legal structure of PTI which we have not yet finalised (and therefore did not want to pre-empt in the Public Comment). * We have included and edited version of the placeholder text offered by Paul Kane regarding the progress in DT-A (SLE) work. * We have edited Annex L on the Separation Review so as to reflect the status of the discussions in the CWG-Stewardship and again, not to pre-empt in the document for Public Comment. Staff will ensure the 2nd Draft Proposal will be published shortly. The package¹ of documents to be published will include: 1. A Foreword from the Chairs (which provides an executive summary of the 2nd Draft Proposal) 2. The 2nd Draft Proposal (with annexes) 3. The 2nd Draft Proposal (without annexes) 4. The Public Comment template (to provide a preferred structure for feedback) 5. An updated version of the XPlane Handout (which includes a visualization of the proposed post-transition model) As noted by Staff, we have cancelled the CWG-Stewardship calls on Thursday 23 April and Tuesday 28 April. We will pick up again on Thursday 30 April at 11:00 UTC. Please encourage your communities to join the briefing webinars on Friday 24 April: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en. For RSVPs, please contact Brenda Brewer. Thank-you to all of you and the ICANN staff who have contributed significant effort over a short space of time. Best wishes, Jonathan and Lise

5 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
by Seun Ojedeji April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Apr 2015 23:04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L. > > > > III.A. > > > > [to replace current first two bullets] > > > > • A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. > > SO: "IANA naming functions," this item was one of what I raised in my comment which Greg forwarded to client( unfortunately I did not get response on), I am unclear why that phrase is still maintained. The understanding i got was that PTI will be the new IANA operator post-transition so again how does the message above put that in context? > > • ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator for the naming functions. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions. > > SO: Again this validates my comment above; is PTI no longer going to be IANA function operator but IANA *names* function operator? Are we trying to split the functions and divide IANA staff, funding, resources et all? This seem unclear and can be complicated. That said, I hope we are not too focused on legal possibilities at the expense of operational realities. I rest my case. Regards > > Annex L: > > > > Triggers for the Separation Mechanism > > An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1) > > (1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board, or whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. > > > > > > SHARON FLANAGAN > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com > > > > From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Client Committee List for CWG > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:22 PM > To: Client Committee > Subject: [client com] FW: Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC > > > > Client Committee — Here below are the notes from the call we just ended. > > > > Timeline attached and also on the Wiki. > > > > CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC > > > > Agenda: > > 1. Opening Remarks > > 2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4 > > a. To be resolved by Design Teams? > > b. To be resolved by CWG? > > c. To be resolved during Public Comment? > > 3. Public Comment > > a. Structure > > b. Associated Communications > > c. Role of CWG Members > > 4. Timeline > > 5. AOB > > 6. Closing Remarks > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. Opening Remarks > > · Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal. > > · We've converged on one proposal for structure > > · Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items. > > · Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted > > > > 2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4 > > The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them. > > a. To be resolved by Design Teams? > > b. To be resolved by CWG? > > c. To be resolved during Public Comment? > > > > Section III starts on page 17 > > Going through Sidley comments > > Change review period text to "every 5 years" > > Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley > > Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley > > For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead > > > > Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting) > > Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit > > Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L > > > > 3. Public Comment > > > > a. Structure > > · As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted. > > · The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable) > > · Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted) > > · The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback > > · The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages > > > > b. Associated Communications > > · There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary > > · There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul > > · The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form. > > > > c. Role of CWG Members > > Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments. > > > > 4. Timeline > > Will publish timeline to the list to save for time. > > (attached here! :) ) > > > > 5. AOB > > > > 6. Closing Remarks > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >

8 18

architectural changes to the root system
by Milton L Mueller April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

> -----Original Message----- > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:16:23AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: > > This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural > > changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further > > review. The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all. The PTI > > Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist. > > Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the > > authorization/validation function)? > > Why isn't this the names community within ICANN? That's where the policy > resides, I thought? > Good point. While the policy might be developed by some combination of ccNSO and GNSO, The "decider" should be the PTI board, not the ICANN board. Speaking as someone who was on DT-F, we understood these "architectural changes" to be processes that drew on a broad range of expertise around the community, and viewed NTIA's role as someone who made the final approval rather than as someone who ran the policy process. Another point here is that ICANN's policy making apparatus is actually poorly organized when it comes to decisions that cross ccTLD and GTLD lines. I think they would have to form a cross-community working group to deal with such issues. Nothing terribly difficult about that, but I still think it makes a lot more sense for the recommendations of such a ccwg to be submitted to the PTI board for approval than the ICANN board.

3 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
by Brenden Kuerbis April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

Hi Marika, The first bullet in Section III.A says: ICANN, through an affiliate controlled by ICANN, to continue as the IANA > Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services through the creation of > a separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI). Section III.A.i.a, which is text provided by Sidley in consultation with the CWG, says: A contract would be entered between PTI and ICANN, which would give PTI the > rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator. I believe the latter statement is correct, and the prior bullet is inconsistent with it (or at least very unclear). Perhaps Sidley could provide more accurate text for the bullet in Section III.A, or I would suggest: > - Creation of a legally separated affiliate, Post-Transition IANA > (PTI), to provide the IANA functions. > > This would be followed by the existing bullets: > - Establishment of service level agreement between ICANN and PTI, the > IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services. > - Changes proposed to root zone environment and relationship with root > zone maintainer. > > -- Brenden On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst > others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, > updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section > IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the > document. > > *Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged > that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to > encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been > flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing > list as soon as possible.* > > Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we > considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as > responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those > responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than > corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. > > You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG > consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor > edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 > UTC. > > For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in > Word as well as pdf. > > Thanks again for all your feedback! > > Marika >

14 29

Proposed DT-F Section 4 on split management function
by Alan Greenberg April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

I suggest that section 4 in both the body of the report and in Annex N be replaced with the following. Control of Root Zone Management Currently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IANA Functions Operator receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it, and distributes it to the Root operators. Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change to this operational relationship. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to alter that relationship in the future, that it be subject to wide community consultation.

6 6

For your review - Version 3.4
by Marika Konings April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached version 3.4. of the proposal which includes the edits and comments that have been received to date as well as those discussed during today's meeting. Note that Sharon had committed to providing some suggestions for Section III as well as Annex L. Also, DT A is working on placeholder language for the section on SLEs. If there are any further comments and/or proposed edits or any that I've missed, please share those with the mailing list at the latest today (Tuesday 21 April) by 23:59 UTC. If you are using the track changes approach, please use the clean version to make your edits. Thanks, Marika

3 2

The PC form
by Andrew Sullivan April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Hi, Having reflected on the proposed form for public comment for a few more minutes, I think that it should not be used. This is not to deny the probable utility it would bring. But I think it will itself be a distraction. The community was promised an open CCWG process with the normal ICANN procedures. As it is, the document is late, the document that gets posted will have significant gaps (this is a charitable way of saying "incomplete"), and the normal length of public comment is not going to be met. If we now add a completely new form that nobody has ever heard suggested before, people are going to wonder what's being hidden behind this innovation. (Indeed, several of us seemed to have exactly that reaction on the call.) It would be quite different if the plans to use this mechanism had been mooted before -- even weeks ago, but ideally in Singapore or earlier. Without having done that, this will look to those who mistrust ICANN as yet another way to filter input so that anything critical doesn't get heard. I'm moreover quite sceptical of the technical support behind this. The existing public comment mechanism uses SMTP (email) and a confirmation loop before taking that mail and putting it in a public archive. It's been working for years. On the call, I heard assurance that there's no database behind the proposed form (which, I note, was itself not actually complete in time for the call). In my day job for the past several years I have either designed, developed, or managed the developers of software. There needs to be some form handling that will take the input from the form and put it somewhere. This might not be a relational database, but there is _some_ software, however trivial, to develop here. This seems like work that would be valuable to do, but not work that is so valuable that we ought to drop other things to implement this new feature at the very last second before public comment should start. If one of my agile development squads came to me the day before the end of a sprint, and suggested designing and implementing a completely new mechanism the day before our demo to the product owner, I'd suggest -- very, very firmly -- that perhaps that idea belonged in the next sprint. If there is any software problem at all (I hesitate to use the word "glitch", but perhaps it will awaken memories for some of you), then it will raise all sorts of issues about preparation, execution of the task, and so on. Therefore, while I agree that this is an innovation that ought to be pursued, I suggest that it ought to be pursued in the context of a less fraught issue for a task that has been smoother than this one has been. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

4 3

Anonymity of Comments
by Greg Shatan April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

All: ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior do not allow anonymous comments in Public Comment. To maximize transparency of the consultation process, ICANN will: ... - Require that all comments be tagged with the sender's name and any relevant affiliation (where the individual is speaking on behalf of a group). Where the respondent is an ICANN Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, or constituency group, some indication must be given of the process that was used to develop the comment and the parties who took part in that process. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2008-01-10-en Greg Shatan

4 3