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.”
Great list Chuck. I’m particularly interested in some of the post/policy steps. For decades, the RSOs have publicly stated they just publish the root zone as provided by the IANA. This promise was made based on the presumption that Jon Postel and then NTIA/ICANN would -only- make changes that were for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the DNS data. It may be perfectly reasonable to presume this will continue going forward, but it might be the right time/place to consider the potential of creating a formal structure between all the groups supporting various attributes of the functional, global DNS instead of using ICANN as the third party intermediary. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 6October2014Monday, at 7:21, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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.”
<IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps proposal 6 Oct 14.docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Bill,
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:55 AM, manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> wrote:
[snipped]
For decades, the RSOs have publicly stated they just publish the root zone as provided by the IANA. This promise was made based on the presumption that Jon Postel and then NTIA/ICANN would -only- make changes that were for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the DNS data.
The question is defining the criteria , the core-values, of what changes are “for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the data” and who oversees that now and how it will occur in a post NTIA world. That’s part of our task to propose...
It may be perfectly reasonable to presume this will continue going forward, but it might be the right time/place to consider the potential of creating a formal structure between all the groups supporting various attributes of the functional, global DNS instead of using ICANN as the third party intermediary.
That’s one possible option of course. Having ICANN spin off certain functions and/or roles over time is another. No doubt other ways forward also are worth exploring.. robert
On 6October2014Monday, at 7:21, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
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.”
<IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps proposal 6 Oct 14.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
the presumptive, that the RSOs would just “go along”, should be clarified. I, for one, would really like to have a structured agreement in place with the entities that consume the data that I publish. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 6October2014Monday, at 8:22, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Bill,
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:55 AM, manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> wrote:
[snipped]
For decades, the RSOs have publicly stated they just publish the root zone as provided by the IANA. This promise was made based on the presumption that Jon Postel and then NTIA/ICANN would -only- make changes that were for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the DNS data.
The question is defining the criteria , the core-values, of what changes are “for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the data” and who oversees that now and how it will occur in a post NTIA world. That’s part of our task to propose...
It may be perfectly reasonable to presume this will continue going forward, but it might be the right time/place to consider the potential of creating a formal structure between all the groups supporting various attributes of the functional, global DNS instead of using ICANN as the third party intermediary.
That’s one possible option of course. Having ICANN spin off certain functions and/or roles over time is another. No doubt other ways forward also are worth exploring..
robert
On 6October2014Monday, at 7:21, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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.”
<IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps proposal 6 Oct 14.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Chuck, Thanks for proposing a draft proposal on items for the CWG to go through. In regards to reference materials, let me recommend to SSAC advisory 067 that provides an overview and history of the (current) IANA functions. It is available at the following URL: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf> A follow-up SSAC advisory on “Principles for the Transition of the Stewardship of the IANA Function" is being finalized and hopefully should be published around the time of ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. I will let the group know one the document is posted online. regards Robert
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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.”
<IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps proposal 6 Oct 14.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Thanks Milton. I totally agree that the RFP provides excellent guidance in terms of what a final proposal needs to contain. My intent in what I proposed was to be at a much higher level. I think the mistake I made was to call it a proposal; I didn’t mean a proposal in the sense of what would be sent to the ICG but rather my proposal as to how we might develop our work plan. Sorry for the confusion on that. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Chuck, No confusion at all, I knew that you were proposing a work plan, not a proposal. My point is that the RFP describes the format that the work needs to take when you complete the work plan, and thus might be helpful in fleshing out the work plan. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 3:21 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Thanks Milton. I totally agree that the RFP provides excellent guidance in terms of what a final proposal needs to contain. My intent in what I proposed was to be at a much higher level. I think the mistake I made was to call it a proposal; I didn’t mean a proposal in the sense of what would be sent to the ICG but rather my proposal as to how we might develop our work plan. Sorry for the confusion on that. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
So I've reviewed the RFP. It is verbose and over-engineered but I think Milton is right: it provides a good framework in which to present a final proposed solution. I am assuming the overall plan is that there will be a range of proposals that will be picked over and the CWG's report will be just one of them. If so, it makes sense to try to standardize as far as possible on the format, if not the content. Should make for greater clarity and understanding. I think discussion at the CWG meeting on Monday should focus on whether any important aspects have been missed, rather than if the group should use this format. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Chuck, No confusion at all, I knew that you were proposing a work plan, not a proposal. My point is that the RFP describes the format that the work needs to take when you complete the work plan, and thus might be helpful in fleshing out the work plan. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 3:21 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Thanks Milton. I totally agree that the RFP provides excellent guidance in terms of what a final proposal needs to contain. My intent in what I proposed was to be at a much higher level. I think the mistake I made was to call it a proposal; I didn’t mean a proposal in the sense of what would be sent to the ICG but rather my proposal as to how we might develop our work plan. Sorry for the confusion on that. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com] I am assuming the overall plan is that there will be a range of proposals that will be picked over and the CWG's report will be just one of them. No, there will only be one proposal per operational community. The ICG will not put itself in a position of picking and choosing among competing proposals. Whatever proposal (for names, numbers, protocols) comes to us will be expected to have broad consensus among the entire relevant community. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> If so, it makes sense to try to standardize as far as possible on the format, if not the content. Should make for greater clarity and understanding. I think discussion at the CWG meeting on Monday should focus on whether any important aspects have been missed, rather than if the group should use this format. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Chuck, No confusion at all, I knew that you were proposing a work plan, not a proposal. My point is that the RFP describes the format that the work needs to take when you complete the work plan, and thus might be helpful in fleshing out the work plan. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 3:21 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Thanks Milton. I totally agree that the RFP provides excellent guidance in terms of what a final proposal needs to contain. My intent in what I proposed was to be at a much higher level. I think the mistake I made was to call it a proposal; I didn’t mean a proposal in the sense of what would be sent to the ICG but rather my proposal as to how we might develop our work plan. Sorry for the confusion on that. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Oct 2014 10:15, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
So I've reviewed the RFP.
It is verbose and over-engineered but I think Milton is right: it
provides a good framework in which to present a final proposed solution.
I am assuming the overall plan is that there will be a range of proposals
that will be picked over and the CWG's report will be just one of them.
Nope, my understanding is that CWG is the clearing house for names and is the *only* reporting medium for names to the ICG. Is this not the case?
I think discussion at the CWG meeting on Monday should focus on whether any important aspects have been missed, rather than if the group should use this format.
Both are quite okay and relevant. Cheers!
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Chuck,
No confusion at all, I knew that you were proposing a work plan, not a
proposal. My point is that the RFP describes the format that the work needs to take when you complete the work plan, and thus might be helpful in fleshing out the work plan.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 3:21 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal
Thanks Milton. I totally agree that the RFP provides excellent guidance
in terms of what a final proposal needs to contain. My intent in what I proposed was to be at a much higher level. I think the mistake I made was to call it a proposal; I didn’t mean a proposal in the sense of what would be sent to the ICG but rather my proposal as to how we might develop our work plan. Sorry for the confusion on that.
Chuck
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal
Chuck
Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA
stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links.
The main RFP is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.p... [PDF, 84 KB]
There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese
transations:
Français [PDF, 94 KB] | Español [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文 [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português [PDF, 92 KB]
Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG:
Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list.
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Can I suggest the inclusion of a step that is good governance and may save problems later on: * Identify groups that will be impacted by changes and ensure that they are properly represented in discussions In other words, not assume that just because this group exists, that ICANN has posted announcements on its website, and there are lots of people and acronyms involved, that everyone that needs to be is aware of the implications and discussions. The exercise of looking outwards toward those that will be impacted should also help provide broader understanding and context around IANA. Kieren On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Chuck
Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links.
The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.p... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> [PDF, 84 KB]
There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français <https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español <https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文 <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский <https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية <https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português <https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB]
Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG:
Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email to stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list.
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
That is always a very good thing to do Kieren. It is at a lower level of detail than I intended but it would be good that we start doing it now. Understanding that we should do what you suggest on an ongoing basis, do you have any suggestions for groups that might be missed? The sooner we identify such groups, whether they are direct or indirect customers of IANA naming services, the sooner we can reach out to them. In the RySG we plan to reach out to all gTLD registries and applicants that are not yet members or observers in the RySG and allow them to participate in our processes as part of the CWG. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 4:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal Can I suggest the inclusion of a step that is good governance and may save problems later on: * Identify groups that will be impacted by changes and ensure that they are properly represented in discussions In other words, not assume that just because this group exists, that ICANN has posted announcements on its website, and there are lots of people and acronyms involved, that everyone that needs to be is aware of the implications and discussions. The exercise of looking outwards toward those that will be impacted should also help provide broader understanding and context around IANA. Kieren On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Chuck Your work plan might be improved or supplemented by reviewing the IANA stewardship coordination group’s Request for Proposals. This document shows CWG the format and data elements that will be required to submit your final proposal to the ICG. Below, I include the links. The main RFP is here: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> [PDF, 84 KB] There are also French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portugese transations: Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-fr....> [PDF, 94 KB] | Español<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-es....> [PDF, 93 KB] | 中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-zh....> [PDF, 135 KB] | Pусский<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ru....> [PDF, 126 KB] | العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-ar.pdf>[PDF, 3.71 MB] | Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-pt....> [PDF, 92 KB] Also keep in mind this advisory from the ICG: Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email tostewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org<mailto:stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org> before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
It is at a lower level of detail than I intended but it would be good that we start doing it now. Understanding that we should do what you suggest on an ongoing basis, do you have any suggestions for groups that might be missed?
I thought it would work best as a step 4 in your plan. 1. Describe processes 2. Identify where USG involved 3. Identify parts that need to be replaced They can all be done with the current group of knowledgeable people. But once those key parts are identified: 4. Identify groups that will be impacted and ensure they are properly represented At that stage, we could look at everyone on the CWG, see who they broadly represent and ask the question: is anyone missing that should be here? I think we'll see this CWG group grow following the LA meeting so it may be that there are no gaps. For the same reason, not sure it's worthwhile doing the exercise now because of that expected growth. But once the key components are identified, it makes sense to make sure those impacted know we are discussing changes that they will likely want to be involved in but may not be a party to. I thought this was a sufficiently high-level idea for it to be worth considering at the very early stages to ensure maximum buy-in. The risk of course is that people only hear about proposed changes when they are already well advanced. Would be good to avoid a situation like the "overarching issues" two-year detour on the new gTLD process. Kieren
Thanks Kieren. I would be okay with that. Chuck From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal
It is at a lower level of detail than I intended but it would be good that we start doing it now. Understanding that we should do what you suggest on an ongoing basis, do you have any suggestions for groups that might be missed?
I thought it would work best as a step 4 in your plan. 1. Describe processes 2. Identify where USG involved 3. Identify parts that need to be replaced They can all be done with the current group of knowledgeable people. But once those key parts are identified: 4. Identify groups that will be impacted and ensure they are properly represented At that stage, we could look at everyone on the CWG, see who they broadly represent and ask the question: is anyone missing that should be here? I think we'll see this CWG group grow following the LA meeting so it may be that there are no gaps. For the same reason, not sure it's worthwhile doing the exercise now because of that expected growth. But once the key components are identified, it makes sense to make sure those impacted know we are discussing changes that they will likely want to be involved in but may not be a party to. I thought this was a sufficiently high-level idea for it to be worth considering at the very early stages to ensure maximum buy-in. The risk of course is that people only hear about proposed changes when they are already well advanced. Would be good to avoid a situation like the "overarching issues" two-year detour on the new gTLD process. Kieren
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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> (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<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and...>. 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.”
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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> (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<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and...>. 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: October-06-14 10:21 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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.”
participants (8)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Gomes, Chuck -
Kieren McCarthy -
Kieren McCarthy -
manning bill -
Milton L Mueller -
Robert Guerra -
Seun Ojedeji