- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

DT-F Changes and comment replies
by Alan Greenberg April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Changes: - The title for section III.A.iii is replicated, once all in upper case and then again under III.A.iii.a in regular case. - Replace Paragraph 4 in both the III.A.iii and Annex N with: Control of Root Zone Control 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. It is clear that the CWG is not suggesting any change to this operational relationship at the moment, but is considering whether this division of responsibility must be maintained in the long term, or could be altered in the future, either to combine the functions, or two reallocated the responsibilities. Proponents of the current division believe that having two parties involved reduces the chance of errors or untoward action. Others believe that we should look at the overall system and if and when there are to be changes, we should design something that is optimal, without prior constraints. Comments are welcome on this issue. Replies to comments: Section III.A.iii Paragraph 2.c Martin: it is not clear who is funding whom. I think that the budget would be provided by ICANN to the PTI Board to support the IANA functions operator's capability) AG: Yes, that is the likely source of funding as we are discussing now. But the statement is more generic. IANA must have adequate funds to allow the Root Zone management function to evolve. If at some point in the future the funds come from somewhere else, the statement is still true. Paragraph 4 Sidley: title is cryptic, as is text describing "two functions" Martin: No changes at the start possible pending a review. RZ Maintainer may query instructions if there is a problem. Andrew Sullivan: No change at start, and then anything could change. Martin's comment on RZ Maintainer being allowed to raise questions is part of the current operational environment and not change is envisioned. AG: This section is there because some DT-F members felt very strongly that it was important to state as an inviolate principle. Others have pointed out that double control can reduce points of failure, but this particular division of responsibilities does not necessarily do that. *IF* a division is to be maintained, it is not clear that the current division of responsibilities is optimal. There has been significant discussion within the group AFTER this wording was frozen. I have revised the wording. Annex N Paragraph 1.a Andrew Sullivan: Asks why is "act as approver" a very short term approach and this section seems like "over-specifying" AG: This covers the possibility that the software could not be changed in time, or more likely to not HAVE to change it at the exact moment of transition. It could be used in the longer term, but that adds unnecessary work and there is no substantive reason to do so. Perhaps it is over-specifying but several people intimately involved in the actual process thought it was worth including. Paragraph 2.a Andrew Sullivan: (Paraphrased) If we no longer need the NTIA, why do we need a new "approver" instead of relying on the MS Community? AG: There was (I believe) unanimity that we do want this. The belief was that for major changes, there should be a formal path to mae the decision and not just leave it up to IANA with whatever consultation they feel might be appropriate. The new big-brother IS the MS community, but embodied in an some designated entity. It has been suggested that the ICANN Board might be that entity, but that needs further discussion. Paragraph 3.a Andrew Sullivan: Publication after a decision does not seem to be a big deal, but before a decision might lead to wider consultation. AG: Publication of approved changes (generally changes requested by a registry) would allow independent review that what Verisign publishes is what IANA requested. The publication of pending redelegation requests is both transparency AND an opportunity for wider consultation. It is reporting that has often been requested. RFC 1591 calls for the involvement in the local community, but currently, if a segment of the community is not explicitly involved by one of the parties, they may not even know a redelegation is being considered. Alan

1 0

FW: Input to CWG-Stewardship
by Grace Abuhamad April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill. On 4/17/15, 2:14 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Dear ICG, > >Please forward this to the CWG-Stewardship. > >I see that a fact sheet on the gTLD ".int" has been submitted to the >CWG-Stewardship, see: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002724.html > >As a complement to that fact sheet, I would like to point out that the >ITU-T >has adopted a Recommendation on ".int", E.910, available at: > > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I/en > >That Recommendation was developed following an open consultation and it >reflects the requirements expressed by UN agencies and other international >treaty organizations. > >Best, >Richard >

5 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal
by Eduardo Diaz April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

My comments about the S-A document 20179247_3 on legal structure: 1] It is not clear who is going to decide about the concepts of designator vs. members (2nd para, page3). Is this an item for the CCWG to resolve? 2] Items (a) & (c) in section "The weaknesses of the proposed structure are as follows." (page 3): *"(a) Requires forming a new entity and on an ongoing basis attending to a set of associated corporate formalities, although those can be fairly minimal;"* " (c) May have some negative impact on operational efficiency due to the *functional separation, and the separate legal status will introduce some * *additional costs, although those should not be significant." * I suggest to delete the two statements pointed here by an underline/italics. Both statements are seemly subjectives and tend to steer the reader to think that this will be easy to implement and that it will not be costly. There has not been any deep analysis done on these to support either statement. -ed On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:49 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 > > -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

6 15

Draft Agenda for Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Dear all, Draft Agenda for Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC 1. Opening Remarks 2. Open items on Draft Proposal 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 Best, Grace

3 3

For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2
by Marika Konings April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the CWG-Stewardship Transition Proposal. Please note that it is still very much work in progress as some key pieces are still missing such as the information from the legal memo that is forthcoming, outstanding work of the design teams (DT A) as well as final language from 'DT X'. However, we did already want to give you an opportunity to review where we are at and as such we would like to encourage you to instead of editing the document line by line, to focus on whether there is information missing or incorrect, the updated recommendations of some of the design teams (e.g. DT M and N) as well as reviewing some of the changes we have made for style and consistency purposes to the DT recommendations. Note that thanks to Kim Davies a number of clarifications have been made to section I and II. We are still working on the annexes (focused on consistency and readability) as well as formatting and numbering of the overall document. As we've moved quite some things around in section III to follow a more logical order, there is a lot of redline in the document which does not necessarily represent new or changed content, but also content that has changed position. As such, you will also find attached a clean version to facilitate your review. Please share any comments you may have (preferably with a reference to page number and section) with the mailing list by Monday 23.59 UTC at the latest. Best regards, Marika

6 12

A Reminder on Translations
by Grace Abuhamad April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Dear all, The question of translations was raised today on an At-Large call, so I wanted to make sure we reminded everyone in the CWG as well. It is our agreement as a CWG to translate all of our formal drafts (and the final document, of course) into all ICANN supported languages. Last week, following our intensive meeting, I made sure to inform the Language Services Department at ICANN that the CWG Draft was coming (so that they are prepared). We will also translate the Public Comment template (which will be discussed further on the CWG call tomorrow.) The translations will be prioritized in the following order: * Short Form Proposal * Public Comment Template * Long Form Proposal (note: this will involve only the translation of the annexes since that is the only difference between the short form and long form) The sooner we have a final document to send the translation, the better. The team understands that this is a priority. Best, Grace

1 0

The PTI board
by Milton L Mueller April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

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@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

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal
by Jonathan Robinson April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

Sharon, Thank-you very much for this draft document. In my view, it is a big step forward in capturing our work to date. It has elicited a reasonable amount of discussion on the main CWG list, which we will need to brief you on. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client@icann.org] Sent: 18 April 2015 18:50 To: Client Subject: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal 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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2
by Brenden Kuerbis April 19, 2015

April 19, 2015

There are a numerous options as to how the numbers and protocols communities might contract for the IANA services that the CWG is recommending reside in a legally separated PTI. At this stage, it would be presumptuous to know how those communities might do that. We should simply let them respond on the record in public comment. <http://internetgovernance.org> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this issue the ICANN names solution should presume that ICANN remain > the service contractor with the other operational communities in any > model. It is only if these other operational communities initiate a > request for a change to a direct service contract with IANA that it becomes > an issue. As far as I know they have neither done so, nor desire to do so. > > I do not see an ambiguity in this. While there may be an opportunity for > them to think about it, there is no requirement or implication that they do > so. > > avri > > On 19-Apr-15 00:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Unstated in the above is that, depending on whether we have > fundamental bylaws or an affiliate, there are either one or two > options for other communities. ICANN can be indifferent to how to > proceed on this, but the other communities may need to make a > decision: > > • Continue the agreement with ICANN, who then undertake to have PTI do > the work for those other communities. This is the only option > available if PTI is a department of ICANN under some fundamental > bylaw(s), but it remains available in case PTI is an affiliate. > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > >

1 0

Bylaws requirements for CWG
by Avri Doria April 18, 2015

April 18, 2015

Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

5 10