Greg,

I see it as two steps: 1) define the community; 2) decide who can best represent that community.  Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"

Chuck,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a practical answer under these circumstances.  It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.

The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email).  The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community.  Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.

Consider the following:

How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?

Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?

As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community.  Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.

As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively.  Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions.  Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:

Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP address numbers including individuals and organizations

RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters including individuals and organizations

While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement.  Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities.  We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.

Greg

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Thanks for getting this started Greg.  Here are my first reactions.

· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name community out.

· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the ‘Names Community’.

· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.

· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.

Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”  I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"

On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.

We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement.  The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.

Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order: 

1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. GNSO and ccNSO
5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 
6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC
7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC
8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations
9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC)
10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC)
11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures
12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure
13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures
14. A completely new structure

ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community." 

The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:

• Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community
• Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust
• Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process)
• Instructing the CCG Representatives
• Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.)
• Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement
• Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance).
• Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement.
• Withdrawing from the Community Agreement
• Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG)
• Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)

Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).

Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).

Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

Best regards,

Greg