- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Several questions for DT-F
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

1. Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate entities. The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or presumably Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is better. With the current architecture, most or all errors that Verisign could catch would also be catchable in a single-party implementation. Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where the two-party solution is better. 2. 1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA prior to the CWG proposal being submitted. 1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including within IANA) post transition. I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not clear that this is an urgent matter. Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016. Do we want to keep it? Alan

10 17

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Updated Structural Model Diagram
by Seun Ojedeji April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi, If this is going into the document slated for public comments. Can it be clearly indicated that the IANA function(and PTI board) referred is in relations to names functions. If it's intended to refer to the 3 main functions of IANA then I think the other 2 communities should be consulted before sending for PC. My hope is that the former is the case, otherwise the later may already be getting late. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 17 Apr 2015 18:35, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Attached is a revised draft of the structural model diagram. > > 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 > >

1 0

DT-F Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Attached. Some clean-up is still required, but this version will suffice if no more time is available. Alan

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Proposal V3.1
by Brenden Kuerbis April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Thanks Marika, I realize staff is working furiously to update this draft in light of recent work and discussions by the CWG. But I did want to flag your comment about bullets on pg. 15 which you note "are suggestions at this stage that may need to be reworded and/or changed based on the results of the DT work." In particular, the bullet(s) should reflect CWG discussion movement toward legal separation of the IANA from ICANN. The same can be said of the heading of section III.A.i., "ICANN to continue as IANA Naming Services Operator", which will need to be revised in order to reflect the same. -- Brenden On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Ahead of today’s CWG meeting, we wanted to share with you the latest > draft of the proposal. Please note that this is very much work in progress, > but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to see how the different > pieces are coming together. Note that we’ve marked areas where we are still > waiting for DT content as well as linkages with the CCWG. The redlines in > the content provided by DTs marks changes that staff has made, either to > reflect updates as a result of the meetings on 13/14 April or edits for > readability and consistency. Also note that we are actively working on the > annexes to ensure that these are consistent and logical from a reader’s > perspective, so you can expect further changes to that part of the document > as well. We anticipate that we’ll be able to share a closer to final draft > with you tomorrow (Friday 16 April) for review, but if you already note any > errors, inconsistencies or other issues, please feel free to point those > out (ideally in the form of comments in an email, as we are actively > working on the draft). > > Thanks, > > Marika >

1 0

UPDATE: Recordings & Transcript DT-N - 10 April
by Brenda Brewer April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Link: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895850 Apologies for first link not working below. From: Brenda Brewer Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 11:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Cc: 'dt7(a)icann.org' Subject: Recordings & Transcript DT-N - 10 April Dear all, The recordings and transcript for the CWG IANA FT-N Meeting #2 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895850 Kind regards, Brenda

2 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Sorry, this should have gone to DT-F. At 16/04/2015 10:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >1. > >Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA >Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate >entities. The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or >presumably Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is >better. With the current architecture, most or all errors that >Verisign could catch would also be catchable in a single-party implementation. > >Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios >where the two-party solution is better. > > >2. > >1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN >IANA prior to the CWG proposal being submitted. > >1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including >within IANA) post transition. > >I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort >of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did >not refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not >clear that this is an urgent matter. > >Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could >be done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016. > >Do we want to keep it? > >Alan

1 0

Updated DT-N Review update
by Avri Doria April 17, 2015

April 17, 2015

Hi, DT-N Review <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> has been updated in an attempt to respond to comments received over the last few meetings. A word and pdf version are attached. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

WEBINAR: CWG-Stewardship Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Please share widely. For the original post, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment Why this matters NTIA Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#> Following the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S Department of Commerce, for ICANN to "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management, a Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) was formed with the purpose of developing a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to domain names. The CWG-Stewardship held briefing webinars on the first draft proposal on 3-4 December 2014, and subsequently received nearly 60 public comments. Following the close of the public comment period, the CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments and continued to work at an intense pace to prepare its transition proposal, through more than 30 teleconferences, a working session at ICANN 52 in Singapore in February, a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul in March and, most recently, during a two-day meeting block with over 12 hours of conferences to converge on the 2nd draft proposal. With the aim to submit its final proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by the close of ICANN 53 in June, the CWG-Stewardship highlights the importance of broader community input of their draft, for which the group has received independent legal counsel for structural considerations and external expertise to bolster operational sections. The CWG-Stewardship will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 24 April from 06:00 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150424T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 24 April from 14:00 15:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150424T14&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/ryYnAw> . 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

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #42 - 16 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #42 on 16 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895711 Action Items Action (Alan): compare DT-F recommendations with DT-C's CSC Charter Action (Chairs): consider Q&A session later in PC period. Action (Chairs): communicate 2-day delay Notes 1. Opening Remarks / Recap of High Intensity Meeting * 2-day meeting on Monday/Tuesday (there were 12h of total meeting time) * Sidley Austin provided support on structural elements of proposal and group decided to focus on legal separation variant of the internal model * Draft is being worked on -- sent to list today for an initial review, but the draft for comment will be delivered tomorrow 2. Update on communications with CCWG-Accountability * Sent a letter to CCWG chairs yesterday evening to give an update on the dependencies and 'instructions' to the CCWG * Four areas addressed: ICANN budget, community empowerment, review and redress, appeal mechanisms (not for ccTLDs but there is still interest for gTLDs) * List came up in Istanbul, but the content was CWG-issued from the Mon/Tues meetings 3. Update from Client Committee (Greg) Had a call today at 14:00 UTC Deliverables for Sidley: 1. Review DT-C (CSC) output for the competition / anti-trust concerns, more generally on governance best practices 2. Review the CCWG dependencies list (is it specific enough? have we locked down our dependency on the CCWG) 3. Description of the model to feed into the work of the CWG ("boil down" the 4 April memo). Include: a. Strengths and weaknesses for legal separation model (could be used as implications of model for the "implications" section of proposal (section IV)) b. Updated diagram c. PTI Board responsibilities (scoping the minimum function of the PTI Board) 4. Outcome of combined DT-C; DT-M; DT-N call * Priority 2 DTs have been addressed. See notes from meeting #38 for further detail. * DT-H on .INT was awaiting input from GAC. The input was received today. * DT-C (CSC) has been mindful of not giving a decision-making role to the CSC. * DT-C; DT-M; and DT-N have worked together to resolve issues and provide a solution for the proposal (knitting the DTs' work together). 5. DT-F recommendations (Alan) * Document is by not final * DT-F does not know what is going to happen with Cooperative Agreement, so there are various parts that cannot be addressed by DT-F Action (Alan): compare DT-F recommendations with DT-C's CSC Charter 6. DT-A recommendations (Paul) * Initial comments received from IANA on the DT-A draft * Further discussion next week based on Paul's schedule. * CWG may need placeholder text considering upcoming public comment date 7. DT-X recommendations and suggested incorporation (Avri) * Google doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE… > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrE…> * Need to continue working on text to include in draft proposal as soon as possible 8. Action plan leading to Public Comment . Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Ask for comments to be received by Monday at 23:59 UTC. . Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). . Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment on Wednesday 22 April. This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). . Thursday 23 April: Call TBC . Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan) Action (Chairs): consider Q&A session later in PC period. Action (Chairs): communicate 2-day delay 3 outputs for Public Comment Short form proposal Long form proposal Xplane summary/bird's eye view 9. AOB (a) Update on principles: Martin and Lise working on finalizing principles (b) Other How to deal with unanswered questions (some that involve other communities)? A few groups left questions for future work. The goal is to get a proposal out. CWG can continue working. Brenda has updated the attendance spreadsheets: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-St….> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-St…. 1st place for top attendance goes to Greg Shatan. 2nd place is Graeme Bunton. 10. Closing

1 0

Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement
by Grace Abuhamad April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today¹s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace

1 0