Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

All, Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG. Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional changes. The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on 17 December 2015 (Tomorrow). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here <https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw> ), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on -progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************** ************************ This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************** ************************ <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Jonathan, Lise, Grace The label "PTI/IANA" should be changed to PTI in all of the cases I saw. Can't see why this couldn't be done, the "I" in PTI stands for..... ? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal All, Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG. Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional changes. The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on 17 December 2015 (Tomorrow). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Insofar as ICANN provides IANA functions for other operational communities, it will do so via PTI. Therefore, it is redundant and confusing to say PTI/IANA. I don't see what confusion is prevents to add IANA to PTI, but I do see what confusion it adds. From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:42 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal HI Milton, The IANA Budget includes funding for IANA services for the other operational communities who have not yet signed on to the PTI as proposed by the CWG. While it may be repetitive to use PTI/IANA, this terminology prevents confusion, remains closer to the original wording in the CWG and ICG proposals, and does not presume changes for the other communities. -Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise, Grace The label "PTI/IANA" should be changed to PTI in all of the cases I saw. Can't see why this couldn't be done, the "I" in PTI stands for..... ? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal All, Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG. Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional changes. The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on 17 December 2015 (Tomorrow). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

But that is precisely my point, Christopher. PTI is not the IANA, nor is ICANN. PTI is the IANA functions operator; each OC decides who their IFO is. IANA as a concept now belongs to the IETF, and we are removing ownership of the IANA trademarks and domains from ICANN, and from any particular IFO, including PTI. One reason I am insisting on label accuracy is that there are people who still don't understand the nature of the structural reform we are enacting. Accurate labeling helps to convey the change. --MM From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] IANA has been maintained as a label for more than a decade, the creation of ICANN notwithstanding. The IANA label will no doubt survive long-time, PTI notwithstanding. IANA is more important in the public mind. CW

Milton, Why do you say "IANA as a concept now belongs to the IETF"? When and how do you believe this happened? Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Well, Milton: That 'structure' has become so complex, as you describe it, that I think it is unsaleable to the global community. As has been observed more than once, at an earlier stage in this matter, PTI is unnecessary in the absence of separation, which many of us do not anticipate under any circumstances.

CW

On 17 Dec 2015, at 00:29, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

But that is precisely my point, Christopher. PTI is not the IANA, nor is ICANN. PTI is the IANA functions operator; each OC decides who their IFO is. IANA as a concept now belongs to the IETF, and we are removing ownership of the IANA trademarks and domains from ICANN, and from any particular IFO, including PTI.

One reason I am insisting on label accuracy is that there are people who still don’t understand the nature of the structural reform we are enacting. Accurate labeling helps to convey the change.

--MM

*From:* Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu]

IANA has been maintained as a label for more than a decade, the creation of ICANN notwithstanding.

The IANA label will no doubt survive long-time, PTI notwithstanding. IANA is more important in the public mind.

CW

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

Am I missing something, Milton? Reference to PTI is fine so long as - in the foreseeable future - we do not see a separation. I can conceive of no reason why you would separate the PTI from ICANN, but rather you would need to issue an RfP and I'd expect us to see a new operator. (The reason for separation is that the operator is not doing a good job!) I guess we can re-write text then, but it seems a bit unnecessary. I agree with you that IANA budget might not be the right terminology, although I really do not think that PTI is correct either. Essentially we are talking about the budget for the IANA functions operation (or IANA functions operator terminology) which is operator neutral. It also (I think) meets Grace's point. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 16 December 2015 23:06 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Insofar as ICANN provides IANA functions for other operational communities, it will do so via PTI. Therefore, it is redundant and confusing to say PTI/IANA. I don't see what confusion is prevents to add IANA to PTI, but I do see what confusion it adds. From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:42 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal HI Milton, The IANA Budget includes funding for IANA services for the other operational communities who have not yet signed on to the PTI as proposed by the CWG. While it may be repetitive to use PTI/IANA, this terminology prevents confusion, remains closer to the original wording in the CWG and ICG proposals, and does not presume changes for the other communities. -Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise, Grace The label "PTI/IANA" should be changed to PTI in all of the cases I saw. Can't see why this couldn't be done, the "I" in PTI stands for..... ? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal All, Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG. Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional changes. The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on 17 December 2015 (Tomorrow). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Martin said: Am I missing something, Milton? Reference to PTI is fine so long as - in the foreseeable future - we do not see a separation. [snip] I agree with you that IANA budget might not be the right terminology, although I really do not think that PTI is correct either. Essentially we are talking about the budget for the IANA functions operation (or IANA functions operator terminology) which is operator neutral. It also (I think) meets Grace's point. MM: OK, I get your point. In generic terms, we are talking about the IANA functions operator (IFO) budget. For the immediate future, this will be the PTI budget. So...just to be clear: the document we are discussing is a public comment on the CCWG accountability proposal, and whether it provides acceptable safeguards for implementation of the CWG proposal. The CWG proposal creates a legally separate entity for the IANA functions which is called PTI. As part of the CWG proposal the community has a right to change the IFO, spin off or kill PTI, and still have some say over its budget. So yes, it is conceivable that the budgeting powers we are talking about would apply to something other than PTI. In that case, PTI/IANA is still wrong, and I want it removed. In contexts in which we are talking generically, we should say "the IFO;" or "the budget for supporting the IANA functions." In some contexts we may still want to say PTI (if we are talking about the immediate transition). In no case do we want to say "IANA" or "the IANA." --MM Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 16 December 2015 23:06 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Insofar as ICANN provides IANA functions for other operational communities, it will do so via PTI. Therefore, it is redundant and confusing to say PTI/IANA. I don't see what confusion is prevents to add IANA to PTI, but I do see what confusion it adds. From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:42 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal HI Milton, The IANA Budget includes funding for IANA services for the other operational communities who have not yet signed on to the PTI as proposed by the CWG. While it may be repetitive to use PTI/IANA, this terminology prevents confusion, remains closer to the original wording in the CWG and ICG proposals, and does not presume changes for the other communities. -Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise, Grace The label "PTI/IANA" should be changed to PTI in all of the cases I saw. Can't see why this couldn't be done, the "I" in PTI stands for..... ? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal All, Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG. Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional changes. The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on 17 December 2015 (Tomorrow). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I really would prefer to change all references to IANA budget to PTI budget, if the reference is in a forward-looking statement. So yes, change the proposal to be correct. If the reference is to existing, pre-transition arrangements or to past situations (e.g., Xavier's reference to the existing "IANA Department," I am ok with leaving it as long as language is added to clarify that we are talking about the old order. --MM From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:11 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Hi Milton, all, I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the language in this case, as it may confuse the reference. Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the decision to the group. Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget" From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Milton Mueller <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about IANA budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted by embedding IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent, and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym. Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the CCWG proposal. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG's 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I've copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I'm sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Greg: ☺ I see that you _still_ don’t quite understand what the IANA is. That is to say, the distinction between an IFO, a functionary contracted to carry out certain functions for the operational communities who are responsible for the registries, and “the IANA” – the generic term for the top level registries as embodied in the IETF RFCs – seems to elude you. I refer you back to our original conversations about this. You were arguing that ICANN or PTI should control the trademarks and domains and you lost that argument. I will have to continue to insist, therefore, that PTI not be called “the IANA” and I really don’t see why you insist on contesting this, because there is nothing tangible to gain by so doing. Fundamentally, I care simply because it is inaccurate but it also has implication for separability and a clean handling of the trademark issue. I am also a bit astounded by the story you have made up about PTI’s organization. Please direct me to anywhere in our proposal, or in our deliberations, where it was decided that PTI should be nothing more than a re-labeling of ICANN’s IANA department and that the transition would not involve any movement, separation or transfer of facilities. I would be very curious to know how and when you got the idea that your personal assumptions about what the separation of PTI got ratified as the one and only version of implementation (“that is our proposal”). PTI is a separate corporation. It may be a controlled subsidiary of ICANN but it is a separate entity, with its own staff, budget, management, and board. Sure, there can be some resource sharing with ICANN but I think we need to devote some serious thought to the implications of blurring the lines between it and ICANN so much that the whole point of legal separation is lost. --MM From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:06 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal My comments on the letter are attached. (Sorry for the "anonymization" of most of my comments; that appears to be the default setting on this particular document.) In response to Milton's comments, I made one further change. I think the remaining references to IANA are appropriate and should not be changed. Also in response to Milton's comments: While PTI would be a separate corporation, and the current IANA staff would become PTI employees, PTI will be treated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN and will not be set up as an isolated, independent organization. As stated in our proposal, "ICANN will provide funding and administrative resources to PTI through an agreed-upon budget." Operationally, this means that PTI will not have its own full-time administrative staff and support services (HR, accounting, IT, office manager, etc.) but would have a support services arrangement where ICANN would provide those services to PTI. Similarly, PTI would not be kicked out of ICANN's offices and forced to set up its own facilities, but would have some form of sharing arrangement (possibly as formal as a sublease, possibly not). It would be expensive and wasteful for a corporation with a dozen or so staffers to hire full-time people across a range of admin/support/back-office functions, and this was never contemplated in our plan. I don't think this subverts our proposal; this is our proposal. If PTI is going to be disaffiliated from ICANN, there will be ample time to make arrangements to replace ICANN's support services and to move out of ICANN -- and if PTI becomes affiliated with another larger entity in place of ICANN, that entity can provide support services and potentially facilities as well. Only if a post-separation PTI is truly stand-alone would it need to incur the costs of being an independent entity. As far as the use of IANA name goes, I disagree with what I believe Milton was saying (the email appears somewhat garbled). As part of the license from the new holder of the IANA trademarks, PTI can be granted the right to use the marks in identifying itself. Indeed, PTI should be licensed the right to use the term "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" as its name, since that is exactly the function that it will be carrying out. PTI would also be using the IANA logo (which combines "IANA" in stylized letters with the name "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority"). If PTI disaffiliates from ICANN, these rights would go along with it. If there is a future separation, and the IANA functions are no longer handled by PTI, the new IFO would be licensed these rights. If there's a partial separation, the mini-IFOs could be termed "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority-Names" ("IANA-Names"), IANA-Numbers and IANA-Protocols (or something like that). Indeed it would be rather odd for the IANA Functions Operator (or operators) not to be called "IANA." Greg On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG’s 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I’ve copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I’m sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ 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

Thanks to Sidley for doing an excellent job in drafting this. I added my comments to Greg’s and to differentiate them I used blue font. I questioned one thing regarding requirement 1 (Community Empowerment Mechanism) but I don’t think it is a show stopper, i.e., I think the CWG requirements would still be met if it isn’t changed. I do think that the CWG requirements will not be met if changes are not made for requirement 2 (ICANN Budget and IANA Budget) and requirement 7 (Appeals Mechanism). Note that Sidley stated that requirement 7 is not met. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:06 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal My comments on the letter are attached. (Sorry for the "anonymization" of most of my comments; that appears to be the default setting on this particular document.) In response to Milton's comments, I made one further change. I think the remaining references to IANA are appropriate and should not be changed. Also in response to Milton's comments: While PTI would be a separate corporation, and the current IANA staff would become PTI employees, PTI will be treated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN and will not be set up as an isolated, independent organization. As stated in our proposal, "ICANN will provide funding and administrative resources to PTI through an agreed-upon budget." Operationally, this means that PTI will not have its own full-time administrative staff and support services (HR, accounting, IT, office manager, etc.) but would have a support services arrangement where ICANN would provide those services to PTI. Similarly, PTI would not be kicked out of ICANN's offices and forced to set up its own facilities, but would have some form of sharing arrangement (possibly as formal as a sublease, possibly not). It would be expensive and wasteful for a corporation with a dozen or so staffers to hire full-time people across a range of admin/support/back-office functions, and this was never contemplated in our plan. I don't think this subverts our proposal; this is our proposal. If PTI is going to be disaffiliated from ICANN, there will be ample time to make arrangements to replace ICANN's support services and to move out of ICANN -- and if PTI becomes affiliated with another larger entity in place of ICANN, that entity can provide support services and potentially facilities as well. Only if a post-separation PTI is truly stand-alone would it need to incur the costs of being an independent entity. As far as the use of IANA name goes, I disagree with what I believe Milton was saying (the email appears somewhat garbled). As part of the license from the new holder of the IANA trademarks, PTI can be granted the right to use the marks in identifying itself. Indeed, PTI should be licensed the right to use the term "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" as its name, since that is exactly the function that it will be carrying out. PTI would also be using the IANA logo (which combines "IANA" in stylized letters with the name "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority"). If PTI disaffiliates from ICANN, these rights would go along with it. If there is a future separation, and the IANA functions are no longer handled by PTI, the new IFO would be licensed these rights. If there's a partial separation, the mini-IFOs could be termed "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority-Names" ("IANA-Names"), IANA-Numbers and IANA-Protocols (or something like that). Indeed it would be rather odd for the IANA Functions Operator (or operators) not to be called "IANA." Greg On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Jonathan, Lise and all: I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification. Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI. Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation. One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal. Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal. In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations. Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document. Thank-you Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal. We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG. Best regards, Holly and Sharon From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project Dear Sidley team, Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG’s 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project. The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I’ve copied the two items directly below for your convenience: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and; 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter. I’m sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly. Thank you, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <CWG Comment Letter.docx> <Untitled attachment 00135.txt> _______________________________________________ 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