Definitely +1 to this idea, Lise. And in response to Christopher, I heard Strickling refer to ICANN as one of the stakeholders. I'm not sure about ICANN as regulator and IANA functions operator - regulators don't really run stuff, do they? It might be a regulator for the gTLD (registry and registrar) operations, but I'd like to understand why you'd think that this also applied to the IANA functions operation. Thanks Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: 20 February 2015 15:17 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Okay, +1 CW PS: However, I do not see the ICANN Board as a 'stakeholder' in its own right. Rather, the ICANN Board is the Regulator holding the Ring among all the Stakeholders. That is why the composition of the Board, the way it is appointed and its accountability to the Community, including Governments, is so important, going forward. On 20 Feb 2015, at 12:15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Lise, This is a welcome idea and i am in support of it. Thanks for providing prior notice Cheers! On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: Dear All, During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board. Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Ah! Milton agrees … ! I would add that from my point of view, and in the primary 1998 international understanding, (to which Ira refers in the 'Collected Feedback') ICANN's primary regulatory function relates to the conditions of competition among Registries and Registrars. That is why I am specifically concerned about the likely consequences of the so-called 'vertical integration' decision. I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'. Not more tonight; it is already late. Regards CW On 20 Feb 2015, at 22:48, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Martin, in ccTLD land ICANN may not look like a regulator but in gTLD land here is what it does: · impose dispute resolution rules on every gTLD registrant in the world · decides on the supply of a resource (TLDs), · accredits registrars, · fixes or has the ability to fix the price for registries’ wholesale prices · establishes requirements, terms and conditions for the registry-registrar relationship · requires the use of certain technologies (e.g., DNSSEC) I could go on… Regulators can run things but whether they do or not, ICANN is a regulator/policy maker.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:45 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Definitely +1 to this idea, Lise.

And in response to Christopher, I heard Strickling refer to ICANN as one of the stakeholders. I’m not sure about ICANN as regulator and IANA functions operator – regulators don’t really run stuff, do they? It might be a regulator for the gTLD (registry and registrar) operations, but I’d like to understand why you’d think that this also applied to the IANA functions operation.

Thanks

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: 20 February 2015 15:17 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Okay, +1 CW

PS: However, I do not see the ICANN Board as a 'stakeholder' in its own right. Rather, the ICANN Board is the Regulator holding the Ring among all the Stakeholders.

That is why the composition of the Board, the way it is appointed and its accountability to the Community, including Governments, is so important, going forward.

On 20 Feb 2015, at 12:15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Lise,

This is a welcome idea and i am in support of it.

Thanks for providing prior notice

Cheers!

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote: Dear All,

During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board.

Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week.

Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

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

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

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

I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a stakeholder. However, since the transition involves ICANN role and power more than any other stakeholder's I think ICANN should have a voice but I object to the chairs apparent decision to privilege them with a liaison. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:29 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Hi, On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'. Just because some entity may or may not be a regulator under some definition for 'regulator' does not say anything about whether or not it is also a stakeholder grouping or comprised of stakeholders. I personally I think of the Board as staff since they are paid by ICANN. And I think that staff are stakeholders too. There are probably many other ways in which their stakeholder nature can be argued. From the most basic defintion, they too have a stake in the recommendations and decisions being made. If one has a stake in a decison, they are, by definition, a stakeholder. One of the most surprising aspects of multistakeholderism is the tendency some have to define others as not having a stake. avri

Hi, I do not understand the special power of a liaison, other than to speak for some other group in a representative manner. I do not see it giving them any authority or consensus role in the decsions of CWG. It seems to me to be an informational role and not a negotiation role. So personally I don't mind the addition of a liaison. Having said that, it does seem that it is controversial enough that perhaps it does need to be taken back to the chartering organizations for advice. avri On 21-Feb-15 10:14, James Gannon wrote:

I would somewhat agree with Milton, I would have concerns about the board being given a special liaison separate to its ability to participate in the work of the CWG as participants, if a special liaison was required then this should have been captured in the chartering of the CWG with the board either being given a members slot or being given a defined role as a liaison in the charter.

I would be concerned that we run the risk of running afoul of the RFP from the ICG "Proposals should be developed through a transparent process that is open to and inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the development of the proposal” if we think back to the initial foundation of the CWG we had a large amount of conflict over the division between members and participants, do we run the risk of going through that again with members, participants, official liaisons?

My 2c suggestion, would be that the chairs write a letter to the board inviting them to become active participants in the mailing list and work of the CWG to ensure that they are captured as relevant stakeholders (Some already are doing this but in personal capacities) that way we can both have input from the board which I agree would be beneficial to our work. I would not like to see also any group/representative elevated or singled out into formal status or position beyond that which the group has been working, very successfully, to date with.

James

On 21 Feb 2015, at 14:29, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote:

...

I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a stakeholder. However, since the transition involves ICANN role and power more than any other stakeholder’s I think ICANN should have a voice but I object to the chairs apparent decision to privilege them with a liaison.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2015 6:29 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Hi,

On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'.

Just because some entity may or may not be a regulator under some definition for 'regulator' does not say anything about whether or not it is also a stakeholder grouping or comprised of stakeholders.

I personally I think of the Board as staff since they are paid by ICANN. And I think that staff are stakeholders too.

There are probably many other ways in which their stakeholder nature can be argued. From the most basic defintion, they too have a stake in the recommendations and decisions being made. If one has a stake in a decison, they are, by definition, a stakeholder.

One of the most surprising aspects of multistakeholderism is the tendency some have to define others as not having a stake.

avri

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

+1 I have never understood - other than this malignant propensity to obfuscate or as we say in my corner of the world 'sell a 6 for a 9' - why, despite the plain facts, there is been so much invested in denial! -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Martin, in ccTLD land ICANN may not look like a regulator but in gTLD land here is what it does:

· impose dispute resolution rules on every gTLD registrant in the world

· decides on the supply of a resource (TLDs),

· accredits registrars,

· fixes or has the ability to fix the price for registries’ wholesale prices

· establishes requirements, terms and conditions for the registry-registrar relationship

· requires the use of certain technologies (e.g., DNSSEC)

I could go on…

Regulators can run things but whether they do or not, ICANN is a regulator/policy maker.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2015 1:45 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship

*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Definitely +1 to this idea, Lise.

And in response to Christopher, I heard Strickling refer to ICANN as one of the stakeholders. I’m not sure about ICANN as regulator and IANA functions operator – regulators don’t really run stuff, do they? It might be a regulator for the gTLD (registry and registrar) operations, but I’d like to understand why you’d think that this also applied to the IANA functions operation.

Thanks

Martin

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Wilkinson *Sent:* 20 February 2015 15:17 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Okay, +1 CW

PS: However, I do not see the ICANN Board as a 'stakeholder' in its own right.

Rather, the ICANN Board is the Regulator holding the Ring among all the Stakeholders.

That is why the composition of the Board, the way it is appointed and its accountability to the Community, including Governments, is so important, going forward.

On 20 Feb 2015, at 12:15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Lise,

This is a welcome idea and i am in support of it.

Thanks for providing prior notice

Cheers!

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:

Dear All,

During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board.

Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week.

Best regards,

Jonathan and Lise

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

--

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

*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

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

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

Milton, Sorry for the delayed response. It seems we are talking about two different things. I agreed below the ICANN as regulator model for gTLDs is one of ICANN's functions. It does not, and should not, have this regulatory role as the IANA functions operator. We need to keep ICANN's various roles separate from the IANA functions operator role - ie it is not just keeping the policy separate, but also ICANN's roles as gTLD regulator. That we keep bringing in gTLD operational issues into the mix does concern me. I thought we had all agreed that we needed some form of separation of roles. Martin From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: 20 February 2015 22:49 To: Martin Boyle; Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Martin, in ccTLD land ICANN may not look like a regulator but in gTLD land here is what it does: * impose dispute resolution rules on every gTLD registrant in the world * decides on the supply of a resource (TLDs), * accredits registrars, * fixes or has the ability to fix the price for registries' wholesale prices * establishes requirements, terms and conditions for the registry-registrar relationship * requires the use of certain technologies (e.g., DNSSEC) I could go on... Regulators can run things but whether they do or not, ICANN is a regulator/policy maker. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:45 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Definitely +1 to this idea, Lise. And in response to Christopher, I heard Strickling refer to ICANN as one of the stakeholders. I'm not sure about ICANN as regulator and IANA functions operator - regulators don't really run stuff, do they? It might be a regulator for the gTLD (registry and registrar) operations, but I'd like to understand why you'd think that this also applied to the IANA functions operation. Thanks Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: 20 February 2015 15:17 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Okay, +1 CW PS: However, I do not see the ICANN Board as a 'stakeholder' in its own right. Rather, the ICANN Board is the Regulator holding the Ring among all the Stakeholders. That is why the composition of the Board, the way it is appointed and its accountability to the Community, including Governments, is so important, going forward. On 20 Feb 2015, at 12:15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Lise, This is a welcome idea and i am in support of it. Thanks for providing prior notice Cheers! On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: Dear All, During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board. Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi, On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 04:17:24PM +0100, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

Rather, the ICANN Board is the Regulator holding the Ring among all the Stakeholders.

I don't know whether I understand this correctly. Perhaps you could say more? It seems to me that there are two different ways this could be true (if it be true at all). One is that the Board is the locus through which policy issues around names get sorted out. If that's true, then it is an issue about how the policy-generation function for the names community is handled. That is indeed an important issue, but I'm not sure it is directly related to the IANA transition as such. A second is that the Board is the regulator of IANA, or maybe just of the names IANA functions. In this case, of course, it would be directly relevant to the IANA transition. This claim would need rather a lot of development for me to tell whether it is the case. In particular, I think that it is the relevant communities for the different IANA functions that are supposed to regulate IANA. In that case, the ICANN Board is part of the names community, and presumably is supposed to reflect the community's will to the extent it has any authority over IANA employees. Is ensuring that the Board reflects that community will the issue you're concerned with? Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 02:24:23PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

That is indeed an important issue, but I'm not sure it is directly related to the IANA transition as such.

Sigh. It is related because in all other operational communities, the policy making function is separated from the IANA function. In DNS it is not.

Perhaps I should have stated explicitly, "…given that there's in fact a whole other WG working on the accountability issues." This is why I argued the other day that we need to work out the necessary and sufficient conditions for accountability but do no more. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:27:22PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:

If you look at the Charters for the two WGs, you will see that there is an accountability piece for this WG and an (admittedly much broader) accountability piece for the other WG. This is not the "non-accountability WG." Figuring out how to apply the dividing line may be more art than science, and needs to be pragmatic rather than doctrinaire, but should at least use the Charters as a starting point.

Yes, and what I'm arguing is that, as a practical matter, what we should do is pick the very minimum we can, because it's nearly the end of February and this WG was supposed to have finished already. So, specifying the necessary and sufficient conditions of accountability necessary for the transition, and _not_ specifying how those conditions are to be achived (leaving that for a WG that is busy working on exactly those issues) seems to me to be a pragmatic approach. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

-----Original Message----- Perhaps I should have stated explicitly, "…given that there's in fact a whole other WG working on the accountability issues." This is why I argued the other day that we need to work out the necessary and sufficient conditions for accountability but do no more.

CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms that relate to the policy making function. CWG is working on IANA transition, which (as our charter clearly states) also involves accountability wrt the IANA functions operator, as well as a requirement that certain CCWG reforms be instituted before the transition. So the existence of another WG is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is desirable to separate ICANN the policy maker from ICANN the IANA operator. Is that clear now?

I'll have to disagree with that Alan. There has been a clear separation between the CWG and CCWG precisely because the problems of IANA accountability and ICANN's "other stuff" - which is 99.9% policy making - are so different. Why would we have created two distinct working groups and given the CWG an explicit mandate to pay attention to the accountability of the IANA functions if the CCWG was intended to cover it all? --MM

-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:47 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

NO! The CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms with regard to whatever ICANN is doing, which may include the IANA function if that continues, through whatever means, to be in its purview.

Alan

At 21/02/2015 07:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms that relate to the policy making function.

Milton,

CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms that relate to the policy making function.

CWG is working on IANA transition, which (as our charter clearly states) also involves accountability wrt the IANA functions operator, as well as a requirement that certain CCWG reforms be instituted before the transition.

I'm curious: where are the IANA operational issues associated with the transition supposed to be discussed in your view? Thanks, -drc

Milton,

...

I'm curious: where are the IANA operational issues associated with the transition supposed to be discussed in your view? Here and in the ICG. Not sure I understand why that isn't evident to you.

Because, to date and to my knowledge, no one has actually discussed IANA operational issues -- from my undoubtedly naïve perspective, the CWG appears to have been solely focused on duplicating the effort of the CCWG. Admittedly, I haven't been following too closely, but last I looked, even the most obvious and critical aspect, namely the fact that NTIA is in the direct operational loop for ALL root zone changes was termed an "orphan issue"(!). Can you point me to where the CWG (or the ICG) have been discussing IANA operational issues? I'd like to get caught up. Thanks, -drc

David

-----Original Message----- Because, to date and to my knowledge, no one has actually discussed IANA operational issues

I am flattered that you view me as personally responsible for keeping the CWG on mission. This shows a great deal of confidence in me. One would normally have thought that you would ask these questions of the CWG chairs, or its official members, and neither category includes me. But I guess you view me as a sympathetic ear. And you are right. Here is my view: The CWG is concerned with the transition of IANA stewardship; i.e., its oversight and accountability once the NTIA contract is gone. Neither CWG nor ICG has a mandate to alter IANA operational practices (those should be done via SLAs with its customers), except insofar as they involve NTIA. You are of course correct that the NTIA is in the loop for all root zone changes. My understanding of where the CWG was on that issue was that the authorization function was deemed 'unnecessary.' So we have discussed it. However, I agree that there is no good model of the replacement process. The reason for that is not, as you imply, that we are duplicating the work of the CCWG here. That assertion, in fact, seems way off target because structural separation of IANA or internal models or trust models for the IANA functions are not under consideration at CCWG. I would welcome a refocus on that issue. But it cannot be discussed independently of the issue of whether IANA is separable from ICANN or permanently locked into ICANN or structurally separated from the policy making entity.

Can you point me to where the CWG (or the ICG) have been discussing IANA operational issues? I'd like to get caught up.

Again, I think this question is best directed toward the chairs and co-chairs. It might even be more productive for you to suggest specific models for changes in the operational practice of root zone changes minus NTIA. Got any ideas? Want to contribute, or just snark? --MM

David I view these as highly constructive comments and would support creation of a "design team" around them. Indeed, it's the only one I see as being really needed at the present time. You may recall that I supported also your earlier comment about root signing. Not sure we agree 100% on the independence of these issues from the accountability models, but I do agree that we can discuss them productively and perhaps develop requirements for them without committing anyone to a particular model, especially now that the ASK model has moved us toward some kind of middle ground. --MM

-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:58 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Milton,

...

I am flattered that you view me as personally responsible for keeping the CWG on mission.

I'll bill you for the replacement of my irony meter.

...

You are of course correct that the NTIA is in the loop for all root zone changes.

NTIA being "in the loop" for root zone changes is a relatively minor issue, easily dealt with in a variety of ways.

Traditionally (well, since the creation of ICANN), NTIA has also been "in the loop" for pretty much all substantive changes related to the structure and operation of the root of the DNS, e.g., the decision on whether and how to sign the root (requiring proposals from both ICANN and Verisign and ultimately choosing the Verisign proposal after their internal evaluation), the mechanism by which the plan for rolling the root Key Signing Key is defined, the decision about whether and how to add internationalized top-level domains, etc. Even the very definition of the "three-legged stool" by which NTIA has inserted itself into the operation of all root zone changes via the IANA Functions Contract and the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign must change.

Yet, to my knowledge, the mechanism(s) by which issues like these are addressed in the post-NTIA world have not yet been discussed in any detail. Hopefully a "design team" will be spun up to look at the mechanism by which issues like these can be addressed.

...

But it cannot be discussed independently of the issue of whether IANA is separable from ICANN or permanently locked into ICANN or structurally separated from the policy making entity.

Oh sure it can.

The mechanisms by which accountability of the IANA Function operator can be ensured that have been discussed to date seem primarily to revolve around pulling the IANA Functions away from ICANN and giving them to someone else (even though no one actually wants to do that now as far as I can tell -- we're told it's for the future).

What the IANA Root Management Function Operator actually DOES insofar as it involves NTIA should (must IMHO) be independent of who actually performs the function. As such, it is eminently possible to discuss independently of whether the IANA functions are separable from ICANN or not.

...

It might even be more productive for you to suggest specific models for changes in the operational practice of root zone changes minus NTIA.

If you might recall, I did, describing one way in which flaws I see in the existing "three-legged stool" could be addressed. Long ago, I also tried to get folks to address NTIA's direct involvement in root zone management. To little avail -- a small number of folks seem to redirect all discussion towards the accountability stuff.

In my opinion, while I would agree the accountability stuff is important and needs to be addressed, it should not preclude addressing the other critical issues associated with the transition.

Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)

As I mentioned on the last conference call - The CWG must come up with a solution to the .int operations. So I suggest this as an issue for a design team now or in the near future. Topic and scope: Registry operations for .int - Under the ICANN bylaws Article II, section 2 - ICANN should not be allowed to be a registry or registrar. That is in conflict with the current practice for.int Policy development - To register under the .int domain today , the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in the RFC 1591. There should be some base document on the policy (not at ICANN) that state the current policy for registration, and sort out procedures for policy changes in the future. that policy Elise Best regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl@nkom.no Mobile: +47 90190947 -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Marika Konings Sendt: 25. februar 2015 09:42 Til: Milton L Mueller; David Conrad Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG) As a reminder, if you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the ³Draft Working methods² and ³Draft Design team Guidelines². These have also been posted on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw). Best regards, Marika On 24/02/15 22:30, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

David I view these as highly constructive comments and would support creation of a "design team" around them. Indeed, it's the only one I see as being really needed at the present time. You may recall that I supported also your earlier comment about root signing.

Not sure we agree 100% on the independence of these issues from the accountability models, but I do agree that we can discuss them productively and perhaps develop requirements for them without committing anyone to a particular model, especially now that the ASK model has moved us toward some kind of middle ground.

--MM

...

-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:58 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Milton,

...

I am flattered that you view me as personally responsible for keeping the CWG on mission.

I'll bill you for the replacement of my irony meter.

...

You are of course correct that the NTIA is in the loop for all root zone changes.

NTIA being "in the loop" for root zone changes is a relatively minor issue, easily dealt with in a variety of ways.

Traditionally (well, since the creation of ICANN), NTIA has also been "in the loop" for pretty much all substantive changes related to the structure and operation of the root of the DNS, e.g., the decision on whether and how to sign the root (requiring proposals from both ICANN and Verisign and ultimately choosing the Verisign proposal after their internal evaluation), the mechanism by which the plan for rolling the root Key Signing Key is defined, the decision about whether and how to add internationalized top-level domains, etc. Even the very definition of the "three-legged stool" by which NTIA has inserted itself into the operation of all root zone changes via the IANA Functions Contract and the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign must change.

Yet, to my knowledge, the mechanism(s) by which issues like these are addressed in the post-NTIA world have not yet been discussed in any detail. Hopefully a "design team" will be spun up to look at the mechanism by which issues like these can be addressed.

...

But it cannot be discussed independently of the issue of whether IANA is separable from ICANN or permanently locked into ICANN or structurally separated from the policy making entity.

Oh sure it can.

The mechanisms by which accountability of the IANA Function operator can be ensured that have been discussed to date seem primarily to revolve around pulling the IANA Functions away from ICANN and giving them to someone else (even though no one actually wants to do that now as far as I can tell -- we're told it's for the future).

What the IANA Root Management Function Operator actually DOES insofar as it involves NTIA should (must IMHO) be independent of who actually performs the function. As such, it is eminently possible to discuss independently of whether the IANA functions are separable from ICANN or not.

...

It might even be more productive for you to suggest specific models for changes in the operational practice of root zone changes minus NTIA.

If you might recall, I did, describing one way in which flaws I see in the existing "three-legged stool" could be addressed. Long ago, I also tried to get folks to address NTIA's direct involvement in root zone management. To little avail -- a small number of folks seem to redirect all discussion towards the accountability stuff.

In my opinion, while I would agree the accountability stuff is important and needs to be addressed, it should not preclude addressing the other critical issues associated with the transition.

Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)

---

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

Re-sending with an amended Subject Line so as for the Co-Chairs not to miss it. Kind regards, Olivier On 26/02/2015 13:18, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Elise,

On 26/02/2015 12:13, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

...

As I mentioned on the last conference call - The CWG must come up with a solution to the .int operations. So I suggest this as an issue for a design team now or in the near future. +1 definitely good for a Design Team now. Could you please suggest it (in the format requested in the Design Team creation guidelines) before the week-end so that CWG Co-Chairs could consider it ASAP? Kindest regards,

Olivier

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

Dear Andrew We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today, but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid" - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side, that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer have the possibility to specify/change through a bid. Elise for why ICANN is now -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Andrew Sullivan Sendt: 26. februar 2015 13:47 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG) Hi, On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:13:09AM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

As I mentioned on the last conference call - The CWG must come up with a solution to the .int operations. So I suggest this as an issue for a design team now or in the near future.

Re-reading the relevant materials, I'm not convinced that this is a necessary condition for transition. That is, the existing ICANN-NTIA agreement covers the int registry in C.2.9.4, and suggests that it is up to the USG who the operator of int is. The decision process for who operates int is not part of the existing agreement; only the operation is. So I _think_, for the purposes of the transition, the same provisions should just be affirmed.

Registry operations for .int - Under the ICANN bylaws Article II, section 2 - ICANN should not be allowed to be a registry or registrar. That is in conflict with the current practice for.int

Are you quite sure that there is a conflict? Here's the bylaw text in full: ICANN shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN. Nothing in this Section is intended to prevent ICANN from taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the operational stability of the Internet in the event of financial failure of a Registry or Registrar or other emergency. I think that the "in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN" modifies both the types of registries and the registrar previously mentioned. Moreover, the IANA department of ICANN is definitely operating registries: it is the registry for the root zone (that's why it has the whois for the root zone too), and for the top-level numbers, and for the protocol parameters. So it can't be that ICANN cannot operate _any_ registry, or the very point of the IANA function would not be possible. I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid. I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone as a registrar, because I cannot imagine operating as a registrar in the int registry would be desirable to anyone (and in any case, it doesn't seem that int is operating with a multi-registrar model right now).

Policy development - To register under the .int domain today , the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in the RFC 1591. There should be some base document on the policy (not at ICANN) that state the current policy for registration, and sort out procedures for policy changes in the future. that policy

RFC 1591 is the base document for that policy. RFC 3172 is the basis for the policy that international databases go under arpa instead. So it seems to me the relevant base documents are in place. It is not clear to me that there are currently procedures (that are not "write a new RFC that obsoletes either 1591 or 3172") to modify policy now. Therefore, it seems to me that adding procedures for such policy changes represents new work above and beyond what is needed for transition. To me, transition is ok to happen if everything that is currently covered is also covered under the new arrangements. Improvements to the existing arrangements are not in scope for transition, I think, or we have no hope of ever finishing work. Therefore, I do not think that any plan around int is necessary, I don't think any bylaw change is needed, and therefore I think this item can be struck from our TODO list. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it. I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators. By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their orbits. A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition, that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

...

We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today,

but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid"

...

- I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side, that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer have the possibility to specify/change through a bid.

I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of the operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see that in any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That seems to me to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the root zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's policy side.

In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int, but not the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like (for example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias to perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical operations contract and give it to someone else. Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of that namespace (including policy) to Afilias.

I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if I am then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.

I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just noting that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to undertake the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an advantage to us, I suggest.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

"Burr, Becky" writes:

I think it is very important to understand from the IETF and NTIA whether any of the test bed functionality remains in .int. Many were moved to the repurposed .arpa (Karen Rose will have to remind me what it stands for)

Address and Routing Parameter Area (see RFC 3172)

- but I do not know if all of them have been moved.

As far as I know, all have. jaap

Can ISOC manage it? -ed On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

Two references:

- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National Telecommunications and Informat ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23; published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011, page 10569

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/IT...

- ITU Recommendation E.910 http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I

Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.

I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.

By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their orbits.

A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition, that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.

...

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

...

We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today, but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid" - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side, that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer have the possibility to specify/change through a bid. I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of the operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see that in any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That seems to me to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the root zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's policy side.

In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int, but not the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like (for example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias to perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical operations contract and give it to someone else. Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of that namespace (including policy) to Afilias.

I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if I am then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.

I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just noting that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to undertake the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an advantage to us, I suggest.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

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

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

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

One might actually ask the parties registered under .INT as to what they would like to see. I’m sure they a) are fully invested in the outcome, and b) might actually have opinions that matter. I can not see why the IETF or the RIRs should have a say in the matter. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 26February2015Thursday, at 11:20, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:

Eduardo,

In regards to .INT, might I suggest the question get asked to the other communities - Numbers (RIR's) & Protocols (IETF). They might have identified the issue as well and may have possible way forward.

regards

Robert

-- Robert Guerra Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:07, Eduardo Diaz wrote:

...

Can ISOC manage it?

-ed

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

...

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

Two references:

- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National Telecommunications and Informat ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23; published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011, page 10569

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/IT...

- ITU Recommendation E.910 http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I

Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.

I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.

By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their orbits.

A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition, that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.

...

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

...

We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today, but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid" - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side, that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer have the possibility to specify/change through a bid. I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of the operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see that in any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That seems to me to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the root zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's policy side.

In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int, but not the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like (for example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias to perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical operations contract and give it to someone else. Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of that namespace (including policy) to Afilias.

I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if I am then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.

I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just noting that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to undertake the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an advantage to us, I suggest.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

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

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

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

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

as a previous admin for .int, i would like to be part of the design team /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 26February2015Thursday, at 4:07, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a reasonable approach. alwasy a good idea to ask the stakeholders.

I also think it is about time this issue rose to the top.

I volunteer to be on an Int DT, even if all we can produce at the moment is a process by, which we can arrive at the recommendation.

One of my questions is why this couldn't become a GNSO issue. As the GNSO starts to have a much wider set of registry types perhaps this is just one piece of the puzzle. Or perhaps the international organization aspects of .int registrants makes them a better fit for the ccNSO. Especially if we adopt a model with structural separation between the policy functions and the operational functions, the solution might be as 'simple' as finding the right home for the registry. The again, we might find that we also need to find a specific steward for the registry itself, as was done with .org.

I have no idea how the registrants of .int would feel about any of these and thus I go back to Bill's approach, let's come up with some questions to ask the registrants of .int.

avri

On 27-Feb-15 03:33, manning bill wrote:

...

One might actually ask the parties registered under .INT as to what they would like to see. I’m sure they a) are fully invested in the outcome, and b) might actually have opinions that matter. I can not see why the IETF or the RIRs should have a say in the matter.

/bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 26February2015Thursday, at 11:20, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:

...

Eduardo,

In regards to .INT, might I suggest the question get asked to the other communities - Numbers (RIR's) & Protocols (IETF). They might have identified the issue as well and may have possible way forward.

regards

Robert

-- Robert Guerra Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org

PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:07, Eduardo Diaz wrote:

...

Can ISOC manage it?

-ed

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>

wrote:

...

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

Two references:

- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National Telecommunications and Informat ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23; published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011, page 10569

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/IT...

- ITU Recommendation E.910

http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I

Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that

.int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.

...

I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this

function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.

...

By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if

we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their orbits.

...

A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition,

that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.

...

> -----Original Message----- > From: > cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship > - > > bounces@icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM > To: > cwg-stewardship@icann.org > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A > liaison

...

> from the Board to CWG) > > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote: > >> We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int >> today,

...

> but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any > competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG > specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation > out to

...

> bid" > >> - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC >> side,

...

> that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best > solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer > have

...

> the possibility to specify/change through a bid. > I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of > the

...

> operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see > that in

...

> any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the > _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That > seems to me

...

> to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the > root

...

> zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's > policy side.

...

> In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int, > but not

...

> the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like > (for

...

> example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias > to

...

> perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical > operations

...

> contract and give it to someone else. > Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of > that

...

> namespace (including policy) to Afilias. > > I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if > I am

...

> then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it. > > I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just > noting

...

> that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to > undertake

...

> the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an > advantage to

...

> us, I suggest. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list

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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list

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

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list

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

---

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

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

---

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

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

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

Indeed.

-----Original Message-----

One might actually ask the parties registered under .INT as to what they would like to see. I'm sure they a) are fully invested in the outcome, and

Andrew Sullivan writes:

<SNIP>

Therefore, I do not think that any plan around int is necessary, I don't think any bylaw change is needed, and therefore I think this item can be struck from our TODO list.

Strickling has repeatedly said that some solution should be presented for the .INT situation. What the exact problem needs to be solved is, I don't know but I suspect it has to do with the fact that IANA is now the registry and the underlining policy doesn't has a real home nor versight. So someone should figure out the problem statement, explore possible solutions and come with suggestions how to proceed. Even a conclusion ``nothing to see here, move on folks'' it is worth to say so with some confidence and reasoning. And yes, I'm happy to help out here is the ``someone'' is going to be a Design Team. jaap

I'm completely in favor of eliminating issues from our list. However, our list is not the only one that matters. In the end, it's the NTIA's list that matters, I'm not sure how to resolve points where our issues differ, but I'm fairly confident that the NTIA is not going to take something off of their list simply because we took it off of ours. On this point in particular, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that IANA is responsible for the technical operations only.and that all the policy formation is reserved to the USG,based on your reading of C.2.9.4. I don't see anything in C.2.9.4 that reserves policy to the USG. It does say that IANA shall operate the INT TLD "within the current registration policies for the TLD".-- but it doesn't say where those policies are set. It certainly doesn't reserve to itself the right to change those policies. In any event, when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, so does C.2.9.4, and any USG limitation on .INT policies goes away with it. This would be a The IANA website does deal with .INT policy in a section called ".INT Policy and Procedures." http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy This in turn cites to RFC 1591, which merely states that "[T]his domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases." I don't see any indication here, either, that the USG sets policy on .INT SAC 067 is consistent with this, and states the following: 6.1.1 US Government Involvement in .INT TLD Management The NTIA has no role in the day-to-day operation of the .INT domain. As .INT management is considered to be an IANA Function, questions relating to the U.S. government involvement in setting management policy—e.g., criteria for obtaining a .INT domain—remain open. Based on the foregoing, it seems to me that when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, .INT is IANA's to do with what they will, subject only to the parameters of RFC 1591. If we are okay with that, fine. If we think it should be constrained as it was under the IANA Function Contract, that's fine too. But, I don't think we can merely eliminate the issue from the list. Greg On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi,

Replying to several messages at once to reduce list traffic.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:29:21PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.

As I was arguing upthread, it _is_ in the contract, but in a strictly limited way: the technical operations only. That's what's in C.2.9.4. In that section, all the policy formation is reserved to the USG:

The Contractor shall operate the INT TLD within the current registration policies for the TLD. Upon designation of a successor registry by the Government, if any, the Contractor shall cooperate with NTIA to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the INT TLD. Such cooperation shall, at a minimum, include timely transfer to the successor registry of the then-current top-level domain registration data. The Contractor shall also implement modifications in performance of the IANA functions as needed upon mutual agreement of the parties.

It seems to me that this WG therefore can nicely side-step this issue by noting that IANA is currently the technical operator but not the policy authority. So as part of the transition, we can state that the pre-existing rules remain in effect (no policy changes, and if the USG designates a new registry then ICANN will cheerfully help). Moreover, if NTIA believes that the policy authority is also part of this transfer, then ICANN will follow the same policy while consulting with existing int registrants to ask them for a new policy authority. No alterations in int registration policy will be undertaken without the (what? Rough consensus? Majority preference? I don't care) of all int registrants.

That dodges the problem of getting a complete solution to all the policy issues for int while respecting the NTIA statements and direction. Moreover, it kicks this problem down the road a bit and thereby allows us not to have to hammer out all the details right now. It is consistent with what everyone wants -- ongoing security and stability -- while yet leaving NTIA an option as to which way we are to understand the existing agreement. Moreover, it's consistent with the multistakeholder approach, and we can even enumerate all the existing affected stakeholders since the zone is so small. (Even if we extended the affected class to all the potential registrants, the list is still entirely manageable in size. So there is one potentially fraught question, and that is whether to use the bigger or smaller class here.)

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

...

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

I suggest that the above approach neatly avoids us having to debate whether management of int can pass to ITU without violating any of the NTIA's directives on this issue. If the ITU can convince all the relevant stakeholders (however defined -- see above), then they can run it. If not, then not. And maybe they don't want it any more.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:11:43PM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

...

Strickling has repeatedly said that some solution should be presented for the .INT situation. What the exact problem needs to be solved is, I don't know but I suspect it has to do with the fact that IANA is now the registry and the underlining policy doesn't has a real home nor versight.

I agree, and I'm suggesting that the ambiguity is something we should take advantage of in order to reduce the "must do" items before the transition.

Please note that I'm not suggesting this isn't important or something that ought to be left forever or anything like that. I'm just saying that, given all the things that we have to achieve in roughly four months, we had better figure out how to eliminate issues from our list whenever it is practical and safe to do so. This is, I submit, such a case; so let's take advantage of that.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

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

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

Thanks Greg - That a good analysis of the situation. All - I see that some in this group things that just bringing up the .int is like setting a fire to the place, but I think I agree with those who say that this might not be the most complicated issue we have to deal with in the CWG, and as underlined by many others - it’s on the “must do” list set out by the USG. It could be limited to some of the elements that is already mentioned by several in the CWG 1. describing/documenting the status quo around the operations of the .int, - the fact that IANA is now the registry operator and the challenges that this might have on the oversight and any policy changes, if any at all, in the future, - when USG withdraw 2. A recommendation to ICANN to come up with a plan to divest - possibly to point to other registry that could take over 3. Point at/describe where and how policy changes can happen, if at all, in the future Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Greg Shatan Sendt: 27. februar 2015 02:43 Til: Andrew Sullivan Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] on int (was Re: ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)) I'm completely in favor of eliminating issues from our list. However, our list is not the only one that matters. In the end, it's the NTIA's list that matters, I'm not sure how to resolve points where our issues differ, but I'm fairly confident that the NTIA is not going to take something off of their list simply because we took it off of ours. On this point in particular, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that IANA is responsible for the technical operations only.and that all the policy formation is reserved to the USG,based on your reading of C.2.9.4. I don't see anything in C.2.9.4 that reserves policy to the USG. It does say that IANA shall operate the INT TLD "within the current registration policies for the TLD".-- but it doesn't say where those policies are set. It certainly doesn't reserve to itself the right to change those policies. In any event, when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, so does C.2.9.4, and any USG limitation on .INT policies goes away with it. This would be a The IANA website does deal with .INT policy in a section called ".INT Policy and Procedures." http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy This in turn cites to RFC 1591, which merely states that "[T]his domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases." I don't see any indication here, either, that the USG sets policy on .INT SAC 067 is consistent with this, and states the following: 6.1.1 US Government Involvement in .INT TLD Management The NTIA has no role in the day-to-day operation of the .INT domain. As .INT management is considered to be an IANA Function, questions relating to the U.S. government involvement in setting management policy—e.g., criteria for obtaining a .INT domain—remain open. Based on the foregoing, it seems to me that when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, .INT is IANA's to do with what they will, subject only to the parameters of RFC 1591. If we are okay with that, fine. If we think it should be constrained as it was under the IANA Function Contract, that's fine too. But, I don't think we can merely eliminate the issue from the list. Greg On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Hi, Replying to several messages at once to reduce list traffic. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:29:21PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Hi, Andrew Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.

As I was arguing upthread, it _is_ in the contract, but in a strictly limited way: the technical operations only. That's what's in C.2.9.4. In that section, all the policy formation is reserved to the USG: The Contractor shall operate the INT TLD within the current registration policies for the TLD. Upon designation of a successor registry by the Government, if any, the Contractor shall cooperate with NTIA to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the INT TLD. Such cooperation shall, at a minimum, include timely transfer to the successor registry of the then-current top-level domain registration data. The Contractor shall also implement modifications in performance of the IANA functions as needed upon mutual agreement of the parties. It seems to me that this WG therefore can nicely side-step this issue by noting that IANA is currently the technical operator but not the policy authority. So as part of the transition, we can state that the pre-existing rules remain in effect (no policy changes, and if the USG designates a new registry then ICANN will cheerfully help). Moreover, if NTIA believes that the policy authority is also part of this transfer, then ICANN will follow the same policy while consulting with existing int registrants to ask them for a new policy authority. No alterations in int registration policy will be undertaken without the (what? Rough consensus? Majority preference? I don't care) of all int registrants. That dodges the problem of getting a complete solution to all the policy issues for int while respecting the NTIA statements and direction. Moreover, it kicks this problem down the road a bit and thereby allows us not to have to hammer out all the details right now. It is consistent with what everyone wants -- ongoing security and stability -- while yet leaving NTIA an option as to which way we are to understand the existing agreement. Moreover, it's consistent with the multistakeholder approach, and we can even enumerate all the existing affected stakeholders since the zone is so small. (Even if we extended the affected class to all the potential registrants, the list is still entirely manageable in size. So there is one potentially fraught question, and that is whether to use the bigger or smaller class here.) On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

I suggest that the above approach neatly avoids us having to debate whether management of int can pass to ITU without violating any of the NTIA's directives on this issue. If the ITU can convince all the relevant stakeholders (however defined -- see above), then they can run it. If not, then not. And maybe they don't want it any more. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:11:43PM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

Strickling has repeatedly said that some solution should be presented for the .INT situation. What the exact problem needs to be solved is, I don't know but I suspect it has to do with the fact that IANA is now the registry and the underlining policy doesn't has a real home nor versight.

I agree, and I'm suggesting that the ambiguity is something we should take advantage of in order to reduce the "must do" items before the transition. Please note that I'm not suggesting this isn't important or something that ought to be left forever or anything like that. I'm just saying that, given all the things that we have to achieve in roughly four months, we had better figure out how to eliminate issues from our list whenever it is practical and safe to do so. This is, I submit, such a case; so let's take advantage of that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>