Guru – Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I have to say that when I went through this I paused on the audit functions as well, but didn’t include them. I think this because the objective of the exercise was twofold: identify provisions that should be retained (the audit functions should be) and those provisions that need to be reviewed and discussed. I don’t think that the audit functions meet this second test, but I take your point that they are related to oversight and accountability. What this points to is that we really don’t need the ‘oversight and accountability’ category. I propose to drop it but this will not alter the list of ‘Issues Flowing from the Contract’. This would restore the internal consistency. Allan From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: October-25-14 6:09 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Hi Allan, This is excellent work and extremely helpful. I haven't gone through it in detail yet but I have a slight query to begin with. In the triage, what is the suggested criteria/heuristic for checking a clause as "Linked to Accountability & Oversight"? For example, why would "Audit Requirements" in C.5 not satisfy the criteria? Or say something completely administrative, like "C.2.9.2: Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management". Why would this not be linked to NTIA oversight? Thanks, Guru On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:58 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Allan, Im still looking to assist with this, Ill look over your draft over the weekend. Thanks for kicking this off. James On 24 Oct 2014, at 21:14, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>> wrote: Please find attached an initial draft of the triage of the IANA functions contract as discussed on the CWG call this week. The first document is the draft Triage itself, organized as per our meeting this week. In the second I have pasted the provisions that I have brought together all of the provisions that I categorized as “Likely Needs Improving” and “Linked to Accountability and Oversight”. I know that a number of you, including Chuck Gomes, Kris Seeburn, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Guru Acharya, Mary Uduma, Wanawit Ahkuputra, and Pitinan Kooarmornpatana have all volunteered to work on this. Thank you. I have sent the drafts to the full list as I do not have all of your emails. Could I ask that anyone who has already volunteered, or anyone that wishes to do so now, to respond quickly to this email so that we might start a CWG RFP2C list. I invite you to review the current draft documents. I am hoping that this can be done in the documents themselves. But if the comments and changes become too cumbersome, I will ask Bart or Marika to suggest how we can deal with these. In closing let me make a general comment. I see the objective of this exercise as being to identify potential issues that will need to be addressed at some point. I do not, however, see the resolution of these issues as being part of this SWG’s work. Rather I see its objective as being to inform the work of the other SWG’s, RFP3 in particular. Regards Allan <INITIAL TRIAGE OF IANA FUNCTIONS CONTRACT.docx><ISSUE FLOWING FROM IANA FUNCTIONS CONTRACT ORG II.docx>_______________________________________________ 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

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Alan,

Thanks for your work on this.

While the current IANA contract is an extremely useful guidepost to the transition, I have always been concerned that using it as a starting point for discussion creates a bit of a “tail wagging the dog” phenomenon.

<snip>

I reiterate again the danger of hanging too much of our process on this methodology. We need to decide what kind of arrangements we want first,

+1

and design the contract around those requirements – not the other way around.

I will add that after determining the type of arrangement, we then determine what mechanism/approach will work for such arrangement....contract can be one of the options to be considered. Cheers!

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Allan MacGillivray *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 4:15 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract

Please find attached an initial draft of the triage of the IANA functions contract as discussed on the CWG call this week.

The first document is the draft Triage itself, organized as per our meeting this week. In the second I have pasted the provisions that I have brought together all of the provisions that I categorized as “Likely Needs Improving” and “Linked to Accountability and Oversight”. I know that a number of you, including Chuck Gomes, Kris Seeburn, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Guru Acharya, Mary Uduma, Wanawit Ahkuputra, and Pitinan Kooarmornpatana have all volunteered to work on this. Thank you. I have sent the drafts to the full list as I do not have all of your emails. Could I ask that anyone who has already volunteered, or anyone that wishes to do so now, to respond quickly to this email so that we might start a CWG RFP2C list.

I invite you to review the current draft documents. I am hoping that this can be done in the documents themselves. But if the comments and changes become too cumbersome, I will ask Bart or Marika to suggest how we can deal with these. In closing let me make a general comment. I see the objective of this exercise as being to *identify* potential issues that will need to be addressed at some point. I do not, however, see *the resolution* of these issues as being part of this SWG’s work. Rather I see its objective as being to inform the work of the other SWG’s, RFP3 in particular.

Regards

Allan

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

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

Allan: Great, I understand your approach to the triage exercise better now. it's good to know that we are in agreement as to its role; maybe with a few modifications you agreed to below and the others agreed, we can indeed turn the page on this and come back to it later as needed. --MM From: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:23 PM To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Milton, I think I agree with virtually all of your comments. See my response below. I do however, want to repeat what I say below - I would like to turn the page on this particular exercise very quickly. I do not want it detracting from the much more important work on part III. When we have a proposal forming, some of this current work might inform the further elaboration of it. Suen - in a separate post, you have made the same general point as Milton and I hope I have responded to it here. Allan From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: October-26-14 11:32 AM To: Allan MacGillivray; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Alan, Thanks for your work on this. While the current IANA contract is an extremely useful guidepost to the transition, I have always been concerned that using it as a starting point for discussion creates a bit of a "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon. AM: I could not agree more. I hope that with this single round of comments, we can put this piece aside, to be referred to only when we have a framework thought out for the overall transition proposal. Let's quickly move on. We need to figure out what kind of accountability and operational arrangements we want _first_, and then design a contract that reflects them. What seems to be happening here is that we are letting the existing contract define what we want, and then adjusting our proposal to that. AM: agreed I know that was not your intention, but the bias is revealed in a number of ways. One simple example is that the current contract was designed to keep protocols, names and numbers under ICANN, whereas that is not necessarily an outcome we need to retain. Thus, anything that it out of scope of this CWG should not be marked "Retain." Out of scope means out of scope, we don't discuss it. AM: Agreed With that as a preamble, here are some more specific comments: C.1.2 Why on earth would we want to retain C.1.2, which describes all the preceding USG contracts? AM: agreed That is highly relevant legally if the US Commerce Dept. NTIA is the principal, but completely irrelevant going forward. C.1.3 remember that we are only developing the proposal for the names part. C.2.1. Your description of the section fails to mention that this is the site where the contractor is required to be wholly US owned, located in US jurisdiction, etc. Think that needs modification? AM: I did flag this aspect in the summary table but it could be done here as well. C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This assumption is not warranted at the present time. AM: It is not intended to make his assumption, in favour of any particular option. C.2.9.4 You propose to retain this but why would we want the IANA to continue operating the .int domain? This is obviously a historical artifact and is completely unrelated to the core IANA functions related to DNS. It brings IANA into operations and registry policy and thus dilutes appropriate separations and possibly even corrupts its functions. .INT should go somewhere else. AM: I was simpy flagging this for attention. My sense is that it is something the GAC is going to have to take on. C.2.12 is micromanagement and assumes that ICANN is the contractor, yet you have proposed no modification. This provision would have to be extensively modified. AM: Agreed. This should be flagged for further review. C.4 could be superseded by an SLA AM: That's why its flagged. C.6 the Conflict of Interest provisions of this were added in response to certain events pertaining to he ICANN board, and again the relevance of this might be minimized by a truly independent contracting process. AM: Not an issue for priority consideration. I reiterate again the danger of hanging too much of our process on this methodology. We need to decide what kind of arrangements we want first, and design the contract around those requirements - not the other way around. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 4:15 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Please find attached an initial draft of the triage of the IANA functions contract as discussed on the CWG call this week. The first document is the draft Triage itself, organized as per our meeting this week. In the second I have pasted the provisions that I have brought together all of the provisions that I categorized as "Likely Needs Improving" and "Linked to Accountability and Oversight". I know that a number of you, including Chuck Gomes, Kris Seeburn, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Guru Acharya, Mary Uduma, Wanawit Ahkuputra, and Pitinan Kooarmornpatana have all volunteered to work on this. Thank you. I have sent the drafts to the full list as I do not have all of your emails. Could I ask that anyone who has already volunteered, or anyone that wishes to do so now, to respond quickly to this email so that we might start a CWG RFP2C list. I invite you to review the current draft documents. I am hoping that this can be done in the documents themselves. But if the comments and changes become too cumbersome, I will ask Bart or Marika to suggest how we can deal with these. In closing let me make a general comment. I see the objective of this exercise as being to identify potential issues that will need to be addressed at some point. I do not, however, see the resolution of these issues as being part of this SWG's work. Rather I see its objective as being to inform the work of the other SWG's, RFP3 in particular. Regards Allan

Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as possible Where is that assumption codified? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html

+1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Maarten Botterman GNKS <maarten@gnksconsult.com<mailto:maarten@gnksconsult.com>> Date: Monday, October 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract I’m with Avri on this. Never heard anyone being unhappy about the IANA practical work (“IANA functions”) as such, I think the world sees that that works, and an old saying in IT is “don’t fix it if it isn’t broken”. It works. Let’s keep the focus on where it is to be, effectively: on the oversight function organization. A challenge big enough to keep us busy without also considering a different organization of the functions at the same time – in particular when there is no apparent need for that. Or did I miss something? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 3:20 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract On 27-Oct-14 00:31, Milton L Mueller wrote: C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This assumption is not warranted at the present time. Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as possible and an assumption that they can or even should be moved to seperate entities is not warranted. The solition does not need to match the structure of the operational communities doing the recommendations. Without an anaylisis of the effect of seperation, I think it unwise to assume they can or should be split. I therefore would rather assume that the unity of IANA should be preserved until such time as it is proved that sperating them is the better solution. And until it is proven that sperating them invovles no risk. Even the IETF which is assuming it can pull out of IANA at any time has not done a complete analysis of the risks of doing so. Until we are sure that it does not pose a risk to the Internet, we ought to be careful about dumping this requirement. avri

Milton - taking the risk of asking more questions, and maybe I am indeed the only one taking it in this way, but: I don't think the problem with oversight of names is with the fact that the execution of several functions is carried out by one body. I just don't understand stand why the splitting up of the execution would be needed when indeed realizing that the oversight for different functions is not in one body, nor is likely to be part of one body. And again taking the risk that my contribution may not be what you think it should be, I would highly appreciate it to talk off line, directly if you think I am wasting the time of this forum or your time. Indeed the intent of my contribution is to be helpful, not to waste time. My summary conclusion so far is that: 1- We mostly agree that oversight should be given in the hands of those stakeholders that care most, as their "business" would be directly affected when execution fails; 2- Some stakeholders do not seem to be prepared to invest time in oversight, even if excellent execution is of utmost importance to them, and we seem to want to seek ways to still involve them. My personal opinion is that we should be willing to educate them and involve them, but that we have no power nor right to drag them in by their hairs - and there is currently clearly no common understanding on how to deal with this (ref: to discussion about ccTLDs, specifically . and IMHO it goes beyond ccTLDs alone). A proposal that may be helpful is the following consideration for managing "names": - Have general oversight from an SSAC/RSAC perspective; - Have specific oversight per domain by stakeholders in those domains (i.e. at the lowest possible level), and consider defining those domains by their specific needs. For instance, I can see that brand domains have very little in common with open gTLDs, or ccTLDs. So (recognizing it is not a full solution, merely a possible direction for solving the problem) my proposal would be to embrace the principle of "subsidiarity" . taking decisions at the lowest level where they can be taken, ideally by those that are directly affected. And this would require defining specific domains. Hope this is helpful. Best Maarten From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 21:18 To: 'Maarten Botterman GNKS'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract Maarten I guess you didn't understand my point. The possibility of separating the execution of the functions has nothing to do with how well or how poorly the IANA practical work is performed now. It has to do precisely with what you say needs attention: the oversight function. Oversight for names may or may not be optimized by combining it with oversight for the other functions. What happens, e.g., if one part is performed well and the other poorly? The requirements and procedures are radically different. This is a fact. At any rate, I would encourage you to follow your own advice and "keep busy" developing a proposal that solve the problem for names, and let the other functions worry about their issues, and let the ICG worry about how they fit together when the proposals are in. Deal? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Botterman GNKS Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 1:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract I'm with Avri on this. Never heard anyone being unhappy about the IANA practical work ("IANA functions") as such, I think the world sees that that works, and an old saying in IT is "don't fix it if it isn't broken". It works. Let's keep the focus on where it is to be, effectively: on the oversight function organization. A challenge big enough to keep us busy without also considering a different organization of the functions at the same time - in particular when there is no apparent need for that. Or did I miss something? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 3:20 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract On 27-Oct-14 00:31, Milton L Mueller wrote: C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This assumption is not warranted at the present time. Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as possible and an assumption that they can or even should be moved to seperate entities is not warranted. The solition does not need to match the structure of the operational communities doing the recommendations. Without an anaylisis of the effect of seperation, I think it unwise to assume they can or should be split. I therefore would rather assume that the unity of IANA should be preserved until such time as it is proved that sperating them is the better solution. And until it is proven that sperating them invovles no risk. Even the IETF which is assuming it can pull out of IANA at any time has not done a complete analysis of the risks of doing so. Until we are sure that it does not pose a risk to the Internet, we ought to be careful about dumping this requirement. avri