- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

III, A i d
by Paul M Kane - CWG April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Members of the CWG - thank you for taking the time today re this substantive issue. My goal is to ensure that all TLD Registries whether members of a SO or not are treated equally. The reality is I think it very unlikely that an abnormal review will be triggered. Language for the paragraph in question could read: While the IANA Function Review will normally be scheduled based on a regular 5 year cycle with other ICANN reviews, a special review may also be initiated at the request of a majority of: members of the ccNSO or ccTLD Registries that are not ccNSO members or; GNSO members or gTLD Registries that are not members of the GNSO. Have a good w/end.... (I am back on Monday). Best Paul PS.I am about to leave for meetings in Italy so Internet access will be very intermittent.

2 1

Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear all, Notes below. 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

1 0

For your review - version V3.3
by Marika Konings April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

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

8 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
by Alan Greenberg April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would require a different set of players. One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community to be able to have some level of control. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. Alan At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as >described in the excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, >"insider" boards are also answerable to the parent company (sole >shareholder) and to their board. It is typically a more constrained >set of responsibilities, and much less independent than the board of >an independent company. Even within those parameters, there are >more or less active boards. I doubt that I would describe any as a >complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive description or >just your somewhat negative one? > >Greg > >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I agree that some clarity here would be useful. > >The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as >a puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as >overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who. > >Alan > > >At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >All, > >In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about >the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to >undertake and or decisions it needs to make. > >It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that >function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred >to as an internal or insider board. > >Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that >the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed >elsewhere? > >Thanks, > >Jonathan > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] >Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 >To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board > >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character > > in the PTI. > >It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes >-- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented. > > > IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of > > participation? > > We should be cautious assigning roles & > > responsibilities to them > >I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's >attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a >responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more >volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things >the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed. > > > a GAC rep (government particpation) > > an ALAC (user particpatiion) > >Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or >the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow >scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining >PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has >been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting >used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes). > > > an ICANN Board rep > >Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an >additional one needed? > > > If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. > > Still a small number. > >In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 >cannot. > >Best regards, > >A > > >-- >Andrew Sullivan ><mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

7 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
by Alan Greenberg April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Then what are we getting from having a separate company. If the buck stops at the ICANN Board, and the PTI Board is just handling the more operational things but ultimately concedes responsibility to the ICANN Board, why not just an ICANN Board subcommittee (which can include non-Board members if needed)? Alan At 21/04/2015 11:39 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >I certainly agree with Jorge that the Board form >should be based on its function and Gregs >crib-sheet on the role of Boards is helpful in this. > >In addition, we need to think about the >constraints that we have (rightly) been putting >on the autonomy of the IANA functions operator. > >On the other side, Id be alarmed at two Boards, >one reporting to the other, that are designed to >be multi-stakeholder and with members chosen >through separate processes. We are asking for >confusion, if not downright competition between >the two Boards which one is the authority in any particular case? > >A number of people have stated that the PTI >Board really does need to be a Management Board > and I think that this is where Brendens >augmentation of Miltons outline comes in. > >So where is the multi-stakeholder element? Id >suggest there are a number of mechanisms: > >1. Publication of reports (as is currently >the case) with the IANA functions operator team >meeting with the wider community in discussion >at ICANN meetings. No exclusions on involvement. >2. An annual CSC report and annual meeting > again open to the wider communitys involvement. >3. The PTI Board I think needs to be >involved in 1 & 2 as well as giving its own >reports to the ICANN Board (again public domain >stuff for the main, with a couple of obvious exceptions). >4. The ccNSO and GNSO processes leading to special reviews (PRF). >5. The programmed review (PRF). >6. Consultations from 4 & 5 leading to the report to the ICANN Board. >7. Board response to the PRF (with consultation) >8. ICANN Board interrogation processes >in response to any concerns from 1-7. >9. Accountability structures put in place >to hold the ICANN Board and executive (which I >would take to include the executive of the subsidiary) to account > >In what way would adding a multi-stakeholder >Board for the PTI benefit this process? > >Id say that the PTI Board (from the role Greg >flagged for us) will have the role >of: strategic planning for the work of the IANA >functions operator; hiring, firing, reviewing >and compensating (if applicable) the Executive >Director; approving the annual budget and >annual financial statements and negotiating with >the ICANN Board for the source of >funds; ensuring legal compliance in >administration and program operations and >ensuring that the PTI keeps within its >mandate. With the exception of the employment >terms of the Executive Director, all of these >roles would be in the public domain and the >multi-stakeholder community could question the >PTI and ICANN Boards at the regular meetings. > >However, for failings (as the model makes ICANN >the steward) the buck stops with the ICANN Board >and that would include it getting angry with the >PTI Board for failure to respond to >deteriorating performance or making its own policy or, or > >Cheers > >Martin > > > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise >Sent: 21 April 2015 10:50 >To: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; >alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board > >All > >+ 1 Jorge, - and I very much agree with the >latest statement from Alan, and also Avris >statement on keeping in mind that with CSC being >just registries and IGOs (the .int registrants), >and the PRT being periodic, it does seem like we >are well on our way toward a nearly >Multistakeholder free solution. We all agree >that PTI board must be efficient, light wait and >with skilled people, but I suggest that the CWG >keep the PTI board representation open before >the public hearing, - the function is not well >enough defined at this stage to agree on exact representation and numbers. > >Elise > >Fra: ><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På >vegne av <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch >Sendt: 21. april 2015 10:22 >Til: ><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >Kopi: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board > >+1 this was already discussed in a CWG call. Function determines form > >Jorge > >Von: ><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg >Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2015 06:22 >An: Greg Shatan >Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board > >Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that >it would make more sense to discuss who should >be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. > >I can live with it doing nothing and all of the >decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use >of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). >I can live with a fully responsible board which >would require a different set of players. > >One of the motivations for having a separate >company is to have some independence from ICANN. >If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, >then the new accountability mechanisms will give >the community the control it needs, but I am not >sure why we are bothering with this new >structure or how it can be perceived as >providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN >Board does NOT make the decisions, then this >Board must, and thus a need for the MS community >to be able to have some level of control. > >We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. > >Alan > >At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >First, I agree that the PTI board has >responsibility for PTI, as described in the >excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, >"insider" boards are also answerable to the >parent company (sole shareholder) and to their >board. It is typically a more constrained set >of responsibilities, and much less independent >than the board of an independent company. Even >within those parameters, there are more or less >active boards. I doubt that I would describe >any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone >else's positive description or just your somewhat negative one? > >Greg > >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >I agree that some clarity here would be useful. >The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps >some envision it as a puppet to some other >entity (including budget decisions as well as >overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who. >Alan >At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >All, >In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about >the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to >undertake and or decisions it needs to make. >It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that >function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred >to as an internal or insider board. >Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that >the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed >elsewhere? >Thanks, >Jonathan >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Sullivan [ mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] >Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 >To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character > > in the PTI. >It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes >-- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented. > > IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of > > participation? > > We should be cautious assigning roles & > > responsibilities to them >I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's >attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a >responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more >volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things >the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed. > > a GAC rep (government particpation) > > an ALAC (user particpatiion) >Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or >the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow >scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining >PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has >been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting >used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes). > > an ICANN Board rep >Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an >additional one needed? > > If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. > > Still a small number. >In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 >cannot. >Best regards, >A >-- >Andrew Sullivan ><mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
by Brenden Kuerbis April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Hi MM, I mostly support that approach, but I'd propose the following modifications. Instead of one naming community representative, I'd suggest one from the GNSO and one from ccNSO. In addition, I'd suggest adding the Exec Dir of the PTI to the board. In total, a lightweight and small five person board. -- Brenden On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > Regarding the composition of the board, the Summary of Legal Structure > says only: “The PTI board could be an ICANN-designated board” and that we > should “avoid the need to replicate the complexity of the multistakeholder > ICANN board.” I agree with the latter concern, but we will need to flesh > out more detail regarding the composition of the PTI board. > > > > I have missed most recent calls, so perhaps this has been discussed > already, but if it has, it didn’t appear in the Sidley Austin draft. > > > > I think a simple and easily implementable solution would be to have > ICANN-designated members be fixed by rules or bylaws (as opposed to wholly > discretionary). > > In my view, the PTI board should consist of the following 3 members: > > 1. The existing IETF liaison on the ICANN board > > 2. Someone designated by the ASO > > 3. Someone designated by ICANN’s board essentially representing the > naming community. One could add to this a recommendation from the CSC if > one wanted, I would be amenable to that. > > > > This PTI board would be balanced across the 3 operational communities and > thus would be in a good position to provide oversight for the IANA > functions. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 8:50 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin. > > > > 1. The structural model diagram > > 2. Summary of Legal Structure > > 3. CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments) > > > > Best regards, > > Lise >

12 34

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal
by Seun Ojedeji April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

To Client committee, Kindly find a few comments/questions below: 1. The existing IANA naming functions department, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI I don't think there is "IANA naming function department" but there is "IANA functions department" So i propose the following: The IANA naming functions, related administrative staff and resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI from the exiting "IANA functions department" 2. The IANA portion of the ICANN budget would be subject to I think it may be useful to be more specific about the IANA budget referred. So the wording below may be useful: The IANA portion of the ICANN budget *related to naming* would be subject to....... 3 .....conducted by a multi-stakeholder body, independent from ICANN There is no section of the document that describe what independent in that statement meant. If it mean independent of ICANN board then it should be clearly stated. 4. The strengths of this proposed structure are as follows: Isn't item c on also a weakness in practical sense considering that ICANN is the source of funding of IANA? 5. The weaknesses of the proposed structure are as follows: I think introduction of new entity/structures creates accountability concerns which i think should be included as a weakness. Also the running cost of those structures should be included as a weakness (overall the end-user bears the cost) Last but not the list, the overall statement seem to miss mention of the formation of the charter/bylaw for the PRF? Regards On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Client Committee List for CWG < cwg-client(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration > by the CWG. This also includes the CCWG dependencies. > > > > Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss. > > > > Best regards, > > Sharon > > > > *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* > Partner > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

8 18

Changes related to the CSC Charter annex
by Donna Austin April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Hi Marika My apologies that this is outside your deadline for comments. I've made some changes to the section on the CSC Charter. Regarding footnote 47, I'd like to see the attached included in the document in some way. It is consistent with the Recommendations document DT-C provided in Istanbul. 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.

2 1

DT-X Separation Mechanism - first draft
by Avri Doria April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Hi, A first draft of a possible separation mechanism is available <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> The drive document remains open for suggested edits and comments. For convenience, have attached a word and pdf version avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

4 8

Structure and comments from Sidley Austin
by Lise Fuhr April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear All, Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin. 1. The structural model diagram 2. Summary of Legal Structure 3. CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments) Best regards, Lise

5 4