Hi Stephanie, Thanks for this great share, I think it's good to note that there was no request to have respective SO/AC formerly present a statement of view before face 2 face so I do hope that the CWG won't hold this against those who haven't made a formal statement. It would have also been very useful to have statement like this made early enough to help maximise the time and provide some guidance. Nevertheless it's better late than never. That said, having read through the document VERY briefly, I largely agree with most of the views/recommendations made except the one that touch on the stakeholder that decides whether there is need to move the IANA function to another operator. My personal view is that such decision should not be left to the so-called direct customers alone; It should rather be on consensus basis across the stakeholders. On a lighter note, it's good to note that the document referred to ICANN as the "current" IANA operator. (Hopefully this would help inform Greg, as the principle document gets finalised). I am no longer certain of my physical presence in Istanbul but will be sure to follow happenings remotely just incase. Looking forward to a focused, goal based and rewarding 2 days of CWG meeting. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Mar 2015 15:27, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> wrote:

Hi All,

With the face-to-face meeting coming up the gTLD Registry participants in the CWG have taken the opportunity to identify shared positions on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the current work of the CWG, and to solicit wider feedback from the RySG.

The attached statement was prepared by gTLD members participating in this working group with input and support from the wider Registries Stakeholder Group. Though no formal vote was taken, all feedback received was constructive and supportive of the statement. It is meant as a follow-on to the RySG comments provided on the Draft IANA proposal, taking into account additional work and developments since December.

We hope you’ll take the time to review the statement in advance of the Istanbul meeting and that it provides useful clarity into concerns and recommendations of gTLD Registry representatives participating in this work.

Please do not hesitate to raise any questions or responses.

Best, and safe travels to all heading to Istanbul.

Stephanie

*Stephanie Duchesneau* *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz ------------------------------

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Stephanie and all other RySG members I agree with many of the key points made in the statement, but I find the tone of the statement rather defensive. It is as if you are assuming that most other stakeholder groups disagree with everything the registries are saying, when in fact there are major areas of agreement with other groups. As a case in point, I and several other NCSG members have always maintained that the CSC should be registry-focused and not a reproduction of the policy making community. I found this statement in particular to be vague and not very helpful: "Duplicative and complicated structures that are currently under discussion are not suitable to achieve a satisfactory IANA service." There are about 6 or 7 different models under discussion. Are you saying that ALL of them are duplicative and complicated? If you are not saying that, you need to specify WHICH ones you consider duplicative and complicated. We are on fundamentally common ground however when you say "Another concern is that an overly complex oversight model could erode the bright line between IANA's technical operations and the ICANN policy functions, by exposing these narrow technical functions to undue risk of capture and interference. IANA must not become a political tool as a result of the transition. As it is today, oversight of the IANA functions should appropriately remain technical and operational and any policy issues should be addressed within the appropriate ICANN policy-making body." Some of the proposals on the table are focused on strengthening the (currently NOT so bright) line between IANA and ICANN policy functions. Can you explain to me why your statement seems to dismiss these proposals? Finally, I hope that the Registry SG, by reiterating the old saw that they are happy with the current performance of the IANA functions, does not think that that implies nothing needs to be done. Satisfactory performance now is in many ways a product of NTIA oversight and the possibility of re-contracting. Satisfactory performance now does not mean that performance will always be satisfactory once that oversight goes away. Thus the transition has to set up new IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms to substitute for the absence of the NTIA. One would think the registries, of all people, would understand this. Thus, when the statement says that "Any discussion of accountability issues" - ANY discussion! - is restricted to the CCWG, it is not only wrong, it is contradicting what your own stakeholder group members said in the ICG. Registry stakeholders were instrumental in inserting into the ICG's charter the idea that CCWG and CWG processes were "interdependent and interrelated" so I'd like to know what accounts for this sudden change. Of course, we need to carefully distinguish between the accountability of IANA and the accountability of ICANN's policy making process, but it is not clear to me that whoever wrote this statement understands that distinction. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:26 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement Hi All, With the face-to-face meeting coming up the gTLD Registry participants in the CWG have taken the opportunity to identify shared positions on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the current work of the CWG, and to solicit wider feedback from the RySG. The attached statement was prepared by gTLD members participating in this working group with input and support from the wider Registries Stakeholder Group. Though no formal vote was taken, all feedback received was constructive and supportive of the statement. It is meant as a follow-on to the RySG comments provided on the Draft IANA proposal, taking into account additional work and developments since December. We hope you'll take the time to review the statement in advance of the Istanbul meeting and that it provides useful clarity into concerns and recommendations of gTLD Registry representatives participating in this work. Please do not hesitate to raise any questions or responses. Best, and safe travels to all heading to Istanbul. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.