Hi Marika, I have some comments and proposed changes to section IV. Please see attached document. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Marika Konings Sendt: 3. juni 2015 16:32 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Apologies, someone just pointed out I attached the wrong document. Please find attached version 2. You can ignore the document I sent you in the previous email, the work on the public comment review tool has not been completed yet. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday 3 June 2015 16:08 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Dear All, Please find attached version 2 of the proposal for your review which includes amongst others: * Jonathan’s edits * Paragraph 102 — CWG edits * Paragraph 106 — Martin addition * Paragraph 111— Martin addition * Paragraph 150 — CWG edits * Paragraph 226 (Annex F) — Martin addition * Paragraph 233 table — Martin addition * Updated Section VI * Updates from DT F concerning root zone maintainer and root zone environment * Suggested changes to address Andrew’s comments in paragraph 96 and 107 * Updates to Annex F * Updates to Annex J per DT M’s feedback Please note that there are still some outstanding items that we expect to update as soon as input is received, for example from DT C concerning the CSC Charter, paragraph 123 (note action item for Avri), outstanding issue in Annex J under discussion by DT M and C, DT A input concerning Annex H, but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to review these latests updates. Furthermore, we will continue working on proofreading and formatting of the document and annexes. Please share any comments and/or edits you have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika

Hi Martin I agree ! Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Martin Boyle Sendt: 4. juni 2015 10:02 Til: lisefuhrforwader; 'Marika Konings'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Hi Lise, Your comment on page 35: yes, like you I saw the CSC (as the name implies) specifically focussing on customer issues. The proposal brings in liaisons, but does this make it multi-stakeholder? I am concerned that we significantly amend the role of the CSC because it is seen as multi-stakeholder and other issues are of more interest to other stakeholders. There are clear roles for the wider stakeholder liaisons - which is why they are liaisons - which are about improving communications and information about the discussions in the CSC with their own community. So I would favour the deletion of the term multi-stakeholder in this paragraph and your addition. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: 04 June 2015 00:38 To: 'Marika Konings'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Hi Marika, I have some comments and proposed changes to section IV. Please see attached document. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Marika Konings Sendt: 3. juni 2015 16:32 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Apologies, someone just pointed out I attached the wrong document. Please find attached version 2. You can ignore the document I sent you in the previous email, the work on the public comment review tool has not been completed yet. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday 3 June 2015 16:08 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2 Dear All, Please find attached version 2 of the proposal for your review which includes amongst others: * Jonathan's edits * Paragraph 102 - CWG edits * Paragraph 106 - Martin addition * Paragraph 111- Martin addition * Paragraph 150 - CWG edits * Paragraph 226 (Annex F) - Martin addition * Paragraph 233 table - Martin addition * Updated Section VI * Updates from DT F concerning root zone maintainer and root zone environment * Suggested changes to address Andrew's comments in paragraph 96 and 107 * Updates to Annex F * Updates to Annex J per DT M's feedback Please note that there are still some outstanding items that we expect to update as soon as input is received, for example from DT C concerning the CSC Charter, paragraph 123 (note action item for Avri), outstanding issue in Annex J under discussion by DT M and C, DT A input concerning Annex H, but we already wanted to give you an opportunity to review these latests updates. Furthermore, we will continue working on proofreading and formatting of the document and annexes. Please share any comments and/or edits you have with the mailing list. Best regards, Marika

Hi, This is the first of a series of individual comments on the v2 document. They represent individual responses to pieces that I thought would be self contained. I am writing as I go through the document, and I'll go through until I run out of time (or energy, which I guess at some abstract level has an uncertain relationship, but I stopped trying to understant quantum mechanics before that chapter). The goal in each message is to try to provide concrete text suggestions. As a general remark, I observe that the paragraph numbering in my copy does not seem to be perfectly preserved, so I'll try to provide as much context as I can. I note that in III, the approach has been altered such that the proposal moves all IANA functions. There are, however, still some adjustments needed. In III.A.i.103, bullet 1, it says "A contract similar to the current NTIA IANA Functions Contract to perform the IANA Functions post-transition;" This isn't quite true, however, because the proposal is really about the ability "to perform the IANA names-related functions post-transition". To that you could add, "(Other IANA functions would also need to be covered, but the mechanism for that coverage is outside the scope of this proposal.)" At least, I think this is right. The alternative is to say that PTI would need all IANA functions to be covered, but that the CWG is indifferent as to whether it is one contract with ICANN, that then recontracts some of those functions out to the other communities; or whether the individual communities contract directly with PTI. Similarly in the last bullet there, there is, "The ability for the multistakeholder community to require, if necessary and after substantial opportunities for remediation, the selection of a new operator for the IANA Functions." This seems to me to be at least problematic. I do not believe that all the different kinds of stakeholders are necessarily going to be involved in decisions about every IANA function. So, here's how I'd redo that section according to what I think the CWG's proposal was: ---%<---cut here--- In order to meet community expectations for the stewardship of the naming related IANA Functions, the CWG-Stewardship, working on the premise that there is current satisfaction with ICANN’s IANA department performance and that ICANN should remain the IANA Functions Operator, agreed that a transition proposal for the names community would require the following elements: • A contract similar to the current NTIA IANA Functions Contract to perform the IANA names functions post-transition; • The ability for the multistakeholder community to ensure that ICANN acts according to community requests with respect to IANA names operations; • Additional insulation, as needed, between operational and policymaking responsibilities and protections for the IFO; • A mechanism to approve changes to the Root Zone environment (with NTIA no longer providing oversight); • The ability to ensure that the IANA Functions are adequately funded by ICANN; • The ability for the multistakeholder community to require, if necessary and after substantial opportunities for remediation, the selection of a new operator for the IANA Functions as they relate to names. It should be noted that this proposal is restricted to names, but it expects all IANA functions are expected to move to PTI. It is not clear as of this writing whether other operational communities would undertake a contract directly with PTI similar to that into which ICANN would enter, or whether those communities would have a contract with ICANN. In the event of the former, those communities would need to work out an agreement with PTI for the support of the respective functions. In the event of the latter, any such contract would be with ICANN, which would then subcontract the function to PTI. The details of which of these is chosen is irrelevant for the purposes of the present proposal, so long as those details are not inconsistent with this proposal. In any case, the arrangements for the non-names IANA functions are out of scope for this document except to the extent they impinge directly on the names functions. --->%---cut here--- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com