- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Principles - Final
by Martin Boyle April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Colleagues, The principles have been held because of a proposal to amend the chapeau paragraph included in the last version sent out. Following this evening's call, I can now confirm that I have agreement to revert to the original text, which had been stable over a number of readings. Accordingly I can now attach the final version - a clean text and a marked up copy so that people can see what was changed. Thank you all for your patience in finalising this document and to the many people who made significant efforts to come to consensus language. Best Martin

1 0

Draft DT-F Reccomendations - revised
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Slight revision. ------------------------ The attached DT-F Recommendations are not final. Although I believe that this draft is largely consistent with DT discussions, it has not yet been approved by the DT. Moreover, the short form and long form generally include the same substance, but require significant editorial changes. Alan

1 0

Draft DT-F Reccomendations
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

The attached DT-F Recommendations are not final. Although I believe that this draft is largely consistent with DT discussions, it has not yet been approved by the DT. Moreover, the short form and long form generally include the same substance, but require significant editorial changes. Alan

1 0

.int
by Lindeberg, Elise April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Lise and Jonathan I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H. >From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also. Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Elise Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947

3 2

Agenda for meeting 41 on Thursday 16/04 at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, Below is the agenda for meeting 41 on Thursday 16/04 at 17:00 UTC. Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks / Recap of High Intensity Meeting 2. Update on communications with CCWG-Accountability 3. Update from Client Committee (Greg) 4. Outcome of combined DT-C; DT-M; DT-N call 5. DT-A recommendations (Paul) 6. DT-F recommendations (Alan) 7. DT-X recommendations and suggested incorporation (Avri) 8. Action plan leading to Public Comment 9. AOB 10. (a) Update on principles 11. (b) Other 12. Closing Best, Grace

4 7

For your review - Draft Transition Proposal V3.1
by Marika Konings April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

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

FW: Update following High Intensity CWG Stewardship meetings
by Jonathan Robinson April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

All, FYI. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 15 April 2015 22:48 To: Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr) Thomas Rickert (rickert(a)anwaelte.de) León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx) Cc: Lise Fuhr (lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk) Subject: Update following High Intensity CWG Stewardship meetings Dear Mathieu, Thomas and Leon, We are pleased to be able to provide you with an update (attached) following the intensive set of meetings of the CWG over the past 2 days (13 & 14 April 2015). We have worked hard towards the goal of producing the draft proposal that we aim to distribute for public comment on 20 April 2015. Our work concentrated on: 1. Finalising the work of our Design Teams which are focussed on operational and technical details of the draft proposal 2. Developing the key structural aspects of the model supporting our draft proposal (with the assistance of our professional advisers) As you are well aware, the CWG proposal will rely on the work of the CCWG in various key areas and the primary objective of this email is therefore to provide you with an update (and additional detail) on precisely those areas of dependency. The timely delivery of your work is vital to the CWG. Over the course of the CWGs collaboration with the CCWG we have always recognised the dependence and it has become increasingly clear that the CWG is relying on your ICANN accountability work, to co-ordinated timescales, in order to support key aspects of the CWGs proposal. The relative simplicity of the CWG proposal is predicated on your work. We look forward to continuing to work with you and to any updates you can provide on your continued progress. Best wishes, Jonathan and Lise CWG Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #2 on 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #2 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896693 Notes DT F call 15 April 2015 Comments received from Milton Timing CWG: Recommendations DT F need to be read by tomorrow Structure: Recommendations that MUST be included Identify topics to be addressed later. Two versions: short form of recomemndation and whatever size is necessary Suggestion use Milton's suggestions for short document Identifying NTIA "routine " Authorization goes away 1 a. Section Why say in short term? Currently prohibited to make changes. Alternative: eiither change before software, or handled on interim basis, without any need to make change Chuck suggestion, make explicit. what is meant Changes to be made 1 b. .Chuck suggestion, third sentences. Add, nor whether what will be in place, Suggested change: The exact form of the latter transition is not currently known, nor what whether anything will replace the current Cooperative Agreement. However, there will likelymay be a requirement to have a formal agreement between the IANA Function Operator and The Root Zone Maintainer. Does the group want to specify additional checks and balances or leave it for later stage? David: include as a recommendation caution not to go one entity Chuck: suggest # 6 as suggestion Recommendation is: additional analysis is needed Recommendation 2 NTIA more extensive than anticipated first NTIA is getting into fair amount Question: Is DT F going to make a recommendation or someone else David: Sensitivities invovled, appropriate to make recoeedation that CWG identify a party that explores issues. NTIA approval needed for different categories Authorization of changes On day-to day basis Publish reporting Approval monthly reports Document approval Question Alan: how often approval and is it real function? Question: what needs prior community approval, what can be done by IFO, with out prior approval by community Topic needs to be considered, what needs to be reviewed/ approved Unclear what rationale was for NTIA. Question What is current rationale, to provide guidance.? Are there real issues or just concerns of USG.? Focus on structural aspects and not on presentation aspects. Question Alan: Are ther topics that need to be discussed outside IAAN, but not fit for public comment? Issues specific to specific situation or cases could be anissue, but not in general items Capture notion that check for everything creates issues by itself, at the same some items may need to be Default should be on openness and tranparancy as main principle, in some operational circumstances,confidentiality may be required -> need to be documented Interaction is vast majority of cases be open and transparent. Note that ATRT 1 and ATRT 2, transparnacy is needed and need to be in DNA Chuck: timing could make it an issue. >making it public when changes already made, non-issue Section 3. Question: is this in DT O? DT O recommended that as the solution get more well-defined to check whether budget has covered them DT O has included general recommendation . However suggestion to re-amphasize point. Cheryl: In addition to DTO recommendation DT F specially notes inclusion of Issues Warranting further discussion Simply listing allows others to pursue these items ( CSC or part of Periodic review If considered critical infrastructure then items should be looked at in a consistent manner. Stornger suggestion that study must be done to be considered by chair Section 5. What should be public and not be public Recommendation needs to be added on in line with discussion David: Suggest to take into account phasing of change request process. Point for publication is when validation has been completed. What really matters is that changes has been accepted for processing Agree it should be studied. In specific cases of delegation and redelgation of ccTLD that third parties. Introduce new section Principles that should be adhered to Include transparence as well ( Section 5) Section 6 Making a statement of concentration of power is appropriate suggestion Chuck Currently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Function Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. Post transition there will only be the first two. DT-F recommends that the remaining two functions should never be awarded to a single entity. Note that the implications of this might vary depending on whether any or all of the robustness issues identified in Issue 1 have been addressed." What i spurpose of separation of IF and RZM, is to esnure two person control. Reduce risk of failures. malicious behaviour etc. Risk mitigation tool This looks at changes proposed to change implemented. Two parties control does not fix all problems, but catches some Sugestion: there should be no concentration of power but we need to explore how best to implement it Section 7 Concern: if community wants to make slower What i spurpose of separation of IF and RZM, is to esnure two person control. Reduce risk of failures. malicious behaviour etc. Risk mitigation tool This looks at changes proposed to change implemented. Two parties control does not fix all problems, but catches some

2 1

Notes from ŒNegotiation Call¹ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N
by Grace Abuhamad April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Negotiation Call¹ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N 15 April at 13:00 UTC Review of Edits/Actions: Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table) Action (staff): edit text for Phase 2 and circulate to CWG list prior to Thursday call. Edits include: * Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1" * Update point a) to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO" (drop other text) * Drop b) * Edit d) to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure. Action (Stephanie): look at special review triggering text Agenda items: 1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table) 2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M 3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions 4. Sidley punch list (including item #2) Notes: Optimum is to not add any new structures 1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table) * DT-N worked on a table of reviews as part of the IANA functions contract. Will review each item and see who/what is responsible and why? * Review monthly performance report -- CSC will cover. This was accepted by all. * Site visit -- CSC determined that site visits were not required. The PRT will reserve the right for site visits * Quarterly performance metrics -- CSC. Accepted by all * Yearly customer survey -- CSC. Accepted by all * Review securirty audit process -- CSC. Accepted by all * Review RZM audit report --CSC. Accepted by all * Review annual audit report -- CSC. Accepted by all Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table) 2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. is open to anyone in Phase 1 and only open to registries in Phase 2 Phase 1 * There is no involvement of the CSC in Phase 1. * Is it ok for anyone to submit a complain in phase 1? No objections * In phase 1, process was adjusted to take CEO out of the escalation path. Phase 1 escalation ends with involvement of the Ombudsman. If that does not work, then complainant (only if registry) can enter phase 2. Phase 2 * Process is only open to registries in Phase 2 * CSC has choice to get incolved or not. Is CSC ok with that role? * CSC getting involved in registries' work is not what DT-C envisions for CSC. CSC involved in mediation could be a liability and conflict issue. Compromise text for Phase 2: a) CSC is notified by complainant/IFO (drop other text) [b) If deemed appropriate and feasible by the CSC, the CSC can try to faciliate a solution] (Suggestion to drop b) since CSC does not then need to be involved in decisions. ) c) Direct customer can request a mediation Comments point by point for phase 2: Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1" Point a) Edit to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO" Point b) * Would replacing the word 'mediate' help solve the issue? Mediate is a specific skill. "Facilitate" is acceptable word. "Discuss"? "interact"? * Definition of IFO: DT-M did not go into detail about who would mediate on behalf of IFO. * Square bracket B -- difficult to live with Point c) * Does the CSC assign a mediator or propose mediation? Difference in role for CSC * Could IANA have a list of mediators and have those results transferred to the CSC Point d) Edit to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure. Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) * To what extent what CSC Remedial Action Plan considered in designing IANA Problem Management Escalation Process? * 4, 5, and possibly 6, are points of difference. * Can accept the mediation but include community mediation before escalatig through accountability mechanisms. * Perhaps step 5 goes to Periodic Review instead of IRP 3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions * review would take place 2 years after transition * review would take place every 5 years * special reviews could be requested by CSC if/where needed (CSC could trigger, but is not alone)

1 0

Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 14, 2015

April 14, 2015

Edited 'punch list' from the meeting is attached. CWG IANA Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC Agenda: 1. High Level Recap on Structural 2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical) 3. Instructions to Sidley? 4. ³Instructions² to the CCWG (Optional) 5. Way Forward Notes: Plan for this call is to go through the punch list from start to finish to assist Sidley. Also will review work for the CCWG. Request to do a side-by-side comparison of the two variants. Sharon kindly provided one via Client list. This was provided to the CWG list as well. Periodic Review Function has been renamed IANA Review Function. We are not settled on the insider Board. We could live with it providing sufficient accountability mechanisms The Board could be internal and independent We have to define the function/role and then see what is the composition of the PTI Board. 2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical) (Edits in Word document on screen share) Can the group compromise on legal separation? Yes, at this stage. 3. Instructions to Sidley? · Filled out punch list · DT-C (CSC) Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governance · Conditional Proposal Wording Implied ³Contract with the CCWG² 4. Instructions for CCWG? ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of its transition plan that: 1. The IANA Function¹s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function. 2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed. Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering (Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular information sharing. Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the mechanics of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the CCWG¹s efforts. Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms in the draft transition proposal. 5. Way Forward Design Teams will complete their work by end of day Wednesday so that the work can be discussed on the CWG call on Thursday at 17:00 UTC. Template for public comment response. One of the Chairs will facilitate the DT negotiation call on Wednesday. Sidley should join. Action (Chairs): send instructions

1 0