Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Thanks for those acharya. IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. My 2 cents Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> wrote: How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1<http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

+1 and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”. There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM To: Krishna Seeburn ; Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Thanks for those acharya. IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. My 2 cents Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote: How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Guru, 1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals. 2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently. 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Guru Acharya Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Gomes, Chuck ; Krishna Seeburn ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way? Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG. I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible? On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: +1 and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”. There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM To: Krishna Seeburn ; Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Thanks for those acharya. IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. My 2 cents Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote: How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Greg very much well said. Not to say that IANA is not an entity but a Function. A function that directly impacts on the Number community. I agree with what some of you said lets look at all options. I would argue that we need to see all the options quite fast as well to really move things forward. For information sake the NRO/ IETF or if we want to be sure consisted of the as they loosely called themselves the I* leaders:- AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, IAB, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, W3C & LACTLD - should be ccTLD There focus is on Numbers and we have to agree to that they have a particular bit in what makes it work in the addressing and infrastructure part. What APNIC have come up is not sole to APNIC but something that these I* leaders have agreed onto. It is less complicated for them as i suggested before. For interest sake i am attaching some information docs. And a bit of the NRO view on accountability: The NRO does not believe that the contract with the US government should be replaced with a similar mechanism at a global level, therefore a guiding principle is specifically not to create any "superior" structure or organisation; rather ICANN's accountability should be defined in terms of transparent agreements with ICANN stakeholders, in which roles and responsibilities, and dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms are fully defined. We believe that a failure by ICANN to abide clearly by established accountability mechanisms, and in particular by defined dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms should have clear consequences, and therefore that arbitration mechanisms should be binding. Furthermore, they must be implementable and effective upon ICANN, regardless of its final structure or locale.The guiding principles for defining or strengthening these accountability mechanisms should be: that they are transparent, implementable and open to improvement; and that they operate in the interests of the open, stable and secure operation of the Internet. I hope this gives away some input.

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2 IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.)

Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not to transition IANA.

Greg Shatan

On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Guru,

1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals.

2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently.

3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Guru Acharya <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way?

Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG.

I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: +1

and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”.

There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM To: Krishna Seeburn <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Thanks for those acharya.

IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything.

The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious.

The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure.

But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point.

My 2 cents

Kris Seeburn

skype: kris_seeburn30

Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn <http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> wrote:

How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community?

Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.

www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 <http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1>

Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00>

Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight.

Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight?

Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight.

Therefore, it is essential to either

Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana...>

Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate

Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.

From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process.

I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.

Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community.

Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community.

Regards,

Acharya

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

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

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

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>

Greg: Our job is to come up with a transition proposal for DNS, for names. The holistic issue of whether the three different aspects of IANA should remain in the same organization or not is outside the scope of this group. Moreover, the results of the other two processes are not known, so I am not sure where you get the idea that the other 2 communities are leaving IANA “as is.” And even if they were, I don’t see how that affects the solution set for names. What we need in this group are more than simple assertions that something is “unnecessary or undesirable.” We need concrete proposals for the names part of the IANA functions that deal with the problem of the end of NTIA oversight of IANA and the accountability of ICANN. As someone with a bit more operational knowledge, I can tell you that the staff members in IANA who deal with names, numbers and protocols are different and there is very little linkage between their day to day tasks, though occasionally there is a need to exchange information and coordinate with the customers of IANA. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2 IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.) Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not to transition IANA. Greg Shatan On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Guru, 1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals. 2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently. 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Guru Acharya<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way? Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG. I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible? On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: +1 and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”. There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM To: Krishna Seeburn<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Thanks for those acharya. IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. My 2 cents Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn<http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn> On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> wrote: How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1<http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Chuck, It’s kind of a minor quibble, isn’t it? The second statement was more specific and precise, of course, but Greg was asking us to come up with a proposal that related to all three areas, so my first sentence just made the point that our work focuses on names, not on numbers or protocols. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:32 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Greg Shatan; WUKnoben Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Milton, I like your second formulation of our task (“We need concrete proposals for the names part of the IANA functions that deal with the problem of the end of NTIA oversight of IANA and the accountability of ICANN.”) better than your first: “Our job is to come up with a transition proposal for DNS, for names.” I know you know this but just to avoid possible misunderstanding by others in the group, we are not tasked with coming up with a transition proposal for DNS but rather with that portion of the DNS that relates to the services provided by NTIA with regard to the IANA naming functions, which is what you essentially said in your second paragraph. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:45 PM To: Greg Shatan; WUKnoben Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Greg: Our job is to come up with a transition proposal for DNS, for names. The holistic issue of whether the three different aspects of IANA should remain in the same organization or not is outside the scope of this group. Moreover, the results of the other two processes are not known, so I am not sure where you get the idea that the other 2 communities are leaving IANA “as is.” And even if they were, I don’t see how that affects the solution set for names. What we need in this group are more than simple assertions that something is “unnecessary or undesirable.” We need concrete proposals for the names part of the IANA functions that deal with the problem of the end of NTIA oversight of IANA and the accountability of ICANN. As someone with a bit more operational knowledge, I can tell you that the staff members in IANA who deal with names, numbers and protocols are different and there is very little linkage between their day to day tasks, though occasionally there is a need to exchange information and coordinate with the customers of IANA. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2 IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.) Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not to transition IANA. Greg Shatan On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Guru, 1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals. 2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently. 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Guru Acharya<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way? Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG. I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible? On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: +1 and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community vs the other two communities”. There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a common proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM To: Krishna Seeburn<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Krishna Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM To: Guru Acharya Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities Thanks for those acharya. IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious. The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point. My 2 cents Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn<http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn> On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> wrote: How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community? Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1<http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight? Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. Therefore, it is essential to either Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana... Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community. Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community. Regards, Acharya _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

All: In relation to this point, Section 1 of the RFP asks for the following: A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer communities. The current (October 16) IETF draft proposal ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01) has the following response: IETF Response: In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple organizations. This is the case with both names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all cases, the IETF engages directly with the appropriate organizations to ensure that each organization's policies are followed. It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to participate, including anyone from ICANN or the regional Internet registries (RIRs), and many people from those organizations regularly do. o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with regard to domain names. These registries require coordination with the Generic Names Support Organization (GNSO). We already perform this coordination.[RFC6761 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761>] o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have been and will be updates to that protocol. We will continue to coordinate with ICANN regarding those changes. o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should those requirements change, we will inform ICANN. o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done in the past. o The IETF has established registries with IANA for special IPv4 and IPv6 assignments. These are specified in [RFC6890 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6890>]. The IETF coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and service providers. A recent example is the expansion of the BGP community field from 16 to 32 bits.[RFC6793 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6793>] It is important to note that this change occurred out of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment between the RIRs and the IETF Greg On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to be clear, I did not ask the group to come up with a proposal that related to all three areas (I am quite clear about our mandate). Rather, the issue is whether our proposal can be unrelated to the proposals from the other two areas.

Maybe any proposal we come up with (regardless of what it is) will work with any proposals that the other two communities come up with. But I do not think we can merely assume that without some discussion and testing of hypotheses along the way. It may also require some horizontal coordination across the 3 groups preparing proposals.

If the best proposal for stewardship, oversight and accountability over the names related IANA functions in a post-NTIA world involves moving these functions out of ICANN, so be it (assuming it is feasible). But we will need to be very confident that this does not compromise the IANA operations, both overall and relating to names.

Greg On Oct 17, 2014 11:33 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Chuck,

It’s kind of a minor quibble, isn’t it? The second statement was more specific and precise, of course, but Greg was asking us to come up with a proposal that related to all three areas, so my first sentence just made the point that our work focuses on names, not on numbers or protocols.

*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* Friday, October 17, 2014 10:32 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Greg Shatan; WUKnoben *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Milton,

I like your second formulation of our task (“We need concrete proposals for the names part of the IANA functions that deal with the problem of the end of NTIA oversight of IANA and the accountability of ICANN.”) better than your first: “Our job is to come up with a transition proposal for DNS, for names.” I know you know this but just to avoid possible misunderstanding by others in the group, we are not tasked with coming up with a transition proposal for DNS but rather with that portion of the DNS that relates to the services provided by NTIA with regard to the IANA naming functions, which is what you essentially said in your second paragraph.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Friday, October 17, 2014 12:45 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; WUKnoben *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Greg:

Our job is to come up with a transition proposal for DNS, for names.

The holistic issue of whether the three different aspects of IANA should remain in the same organization or not is outside the scope of this group. Moreover, the results of the other two processes are not known, so I am not sure where you get the idea that the other 2 communities are leaving IANA “as is.” And even if they were, I don’t see how that affects the solution set for names.

What we need in this group are more than simple assertions that something is “unnecessary or undesirable.” We need concrete proposals for the names part of the IANA functions that deal with the problem of the end of NTIA oversight of IANA and the accountability of ICANN.

As someone with a bit more operational knowledge, I can tell you that the staff members in IANA who deal with names, numbers and protocols are different and there is very little linkage between their day to day tasks, though occasionally there is a need to exchange information and coordinate with the customers of IANA.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan

I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2 IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.)

Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not to transition IANA.

Greg Shatan

On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

Guru,

1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals.

2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into consideration diligently.

3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>

*Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM

*To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>

*Cc:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated in the same way?

Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG.

I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural separation of the three IANAs is feasible?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

+1

and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community *vs* the other two communities”.

There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a *common* proposal.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>

*Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM

*To:* Krishna Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>

*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1 makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Krishna Seeburn *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM *To:* Guru Acharya *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

Thanks for those acharya.

IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything.

The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious.

The names community however have a different but more challenging approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure.

But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree with everyone to some point.

My 2 cents

*Kris Seeburn*

skype: kris_seeburn30

Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn

On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote:

How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted by the numbers community and protocols community?

Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.

www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1

Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00

Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA oversight.

Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA oversight?

Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight.

Therefore, it is essential to either

Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana...

Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate

Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.

From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process.

I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.

Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and numbers community.

Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names community.

Regards,

Acharya

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

------------------------------

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

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