Very helpful Allan.  Thanks.

Chuck

From: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:46 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal

Chuck – this is a good list.  I want to elaborate a bit on what I said on the call and perhaps integrate this with what you have suggested and try to link it to what the ICG’s RFP has requested, which I believe is Milton’s point.

.

As I noted on the call today, the  ICG’s RFP (see pages 3 and 4) makes a number of specific requests for what one could call background information, which is needed to provided context and support to the specific transition proposal itself:

1.    Description of Community’s Use of IANA Functions

2.    Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements

i) Policy Sources

ii) Oversight and Accountability

Since we will need to provide text under these headings in the final submission to the ICG, my thought is to get going on these elements right away as they should not be contentious.  I am happy to ‘own’ this for the time being, to provide a focal point for the work.  I have asked Bart and Marika to see what they can find that might get us going.  The piece from SSAC that Robert sent along is also a good place to start, though it focuses on the whole of the IANA functions while we are reviewing only those functions specifically relevant to the domain names.  

In addition, I think that everyone would benefit from reading the actual IANA Functions Contract.  I believe it represents a good place to begin our detailed work.  I will get the ball rolling by trying to provide at least an initial assessment and comment on its provisions as this may help us determine where we need to focus our precious fact to face time while in Los Angeles.

Chuck – herewith a few comments on how your suggestions might slot into what I am suggesting: 

IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal

For the CWG, I think a process something like the following would be a reasonable and effective way to go:

1. 1.           Describe all the steps in the current IANA processes for names.

· This should be covered off under the background work required in response to the RFP.

2. 2.           Identify the places in those steps where the US government (through NTIA and/or any other government agency) participates.

3. 3             Identify elements of the U.S. Government’s role that need to be replaced.

· These two issues should come out of a clause by clause review of the existing contract.

4.            Brainstorm ideas about possible multi-stakeholder (not multi-lateral) process replacements for the U.S. Government’s role.

5.            Develop consensus positions on a revised process.

6.            Identify process points where accountability checks are needed.

7.            Brainstorm accountability check ideas.

· A description of the existing accountability processes required by the RFP should represent a good point of departure for the discussion of points 6. and 7.

8.            Develop consensus positions on accountability checks.

9.            Brainstorm ideas on how to connect the assurance of general ICANN accountability before the IANA transition happens.

10.          Develop consensus positions regarding 9.

11.          Write final report and deliver it to the ICG.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: October-06-14 10:21 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal

As promised on our first IANA Stewardship CWG call today, attached and pasted below is a proposal to get us started in developing a work plan.  Note that it is intentionally brief;  we can fill in details later.  I encourage free and open discussion of this between now and our meeting in L.A.

Chuck

IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal

For the CWG, I think a process something like the following would be a reasonable and effective way to go:

1. Describe all the steps in the current IANA processes for names.

2. Identify the places in those steps where the US government (through NTIA and/or any other government agency) participates.

3. Identify elements of the U.S. Government’s role that need to be replaced.

4. Brainstorm ideas about possible multi-stakeholder (not multi-lateral) process replacements for the U.S. Government’s role.

5. Develop consensus positions on a revised process.

6. Identify process points where accountability checks are needed.

7. Brainstorm accountability check ideas.

8. Develop consensus positions on accountability checks.

9. Brainstorm ideas on how to connect the assurance of general ICANN accountability before the IANA transition happens.

10. Develop consensus positions regarding 9.

11. Write final report and deliver it to the ICG.

Of course there should be lots of interaction between the CWG members and participants and the groups they represent as well as the general Internet population throughout the process.  That should be continuous using the representative structure of the CWG but there can also be formal opportunities for input such as public comment periods.

Also, it may not be necessary for all of the steps to be performed serially; some could be done in parallel.

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”