Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG’s RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled “Policy sources” and asks for “the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as “Policy, Principles and Guidelines” and the comment says it was “changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included.” I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don’t change the RFP. Let’s not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC “principles and guidelines” or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that “must be followed by the IANA functions operator” then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don’t include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC’s Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a “description of how policy is developed” (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC’s role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika’s comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) – is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

Hi, Chuck, we are not at the level of specific edits yet, though a few of my comments cold be translated into those and I will do that at an appropriate time. I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? If not, then we can describe them as part of the policy process. If you do, then we can leave it as it. Similarly, I just want to ask why we are including the IANA contract as a source of policy from the names community. I’m open to support or opposition to those points, but it makes no sense for me to dip into the document and change things unless we have agreement on those points. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG’s RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled “Policy sources” and asks for “the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as “Policy, Principles and Guidelines” and the comment says it was “changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included.” I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don’t change the RFP. Let’s not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC “principles and guidelines” or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that “must be followed by the IANA functions operator” then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don’t include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC’s Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a “description of how policy is developed” (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC’s role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika’s comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) – is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not?

*/[Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue for ccTLDs. I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to respond. Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect the expertise of those from the ccTLD community./*

I am and have been a ccTLD Manager for 18(ish) years - happy to help. What is the specific question? I am not a member of the ccNSO - so can't speak for them. Currently the authority to manage a ccTLD Registry is decentralised, empowering diversity to best serve their customer's needs. ccTLD Registries are accountable to their local community, (have Policy development process that accommodate local culture, legal systems and operating environments) and are responsible for their entries in the IANA and Root Servers. I thought it helpful to emphasis that for some ccTLDs centralising authority at ICANN is undesirable, hence:I agreed with the original draft that contained the following wording after para 3: "As a quick example of a policy outlined within RFC1591 that has had significant repercussions, the document says this about the issue of re-delegation: "The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in." I am trying manage the many emails (in addition to my day job) as best I can - please ask a specific question and I will do my best to answer. Best Paul

Milton, Here is some other information relating to this thread that was brought to my attention. On the GAC Principles thing they are formally referred to in the NTIA contract as follows: C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) --The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. As such this refers to two main sources of policy for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs which were not developed in the ICANN bottom-up policy dev. model. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:29 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks Milton. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]<mailto:[mailto:mueller@syr.edu]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hi, Chuck, we are not at the level of specific edits yet, though a few of my comments cold be translated into those and I will do that at an appropriate time. [Chuck Gomes] I have two questions: 1) Who is ‘we’?; 2) why are we not at the level of specific edits yet? I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? [Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue for ccTLDs. I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to respond. Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect the expertise of those from the ccTLD community. If not, then we can describe them as part of the policy process. If you do, then we can leave it as it. [Chuck Gomes] Could you make specific suggestions regarding how you would do this? This is an example where redline changes would make it much easier for staff to respond and for the rest of us to evaluate the changes. Because there are such a large number of people in the CWG (and that is good), managing the edits to documents could become an excessively challenging process for the few people who are responsible for that. Similarly, I just want to ask why we are including the IANA contract as a source of policy from the names community. [Chuck Gomes] It is not being included as a source of policy. That is just one example of why we changed the section title. Another example is the GAC principles. I understand that in a normal business environment that respondents would not change the wording from an RFP but I don’t think that we are a normal business environment. More importantly, it is my impression that the ICG with good intentions tried to create an RFP as a one size fits all for all three of the areas that need to respond. But in the case of names, the source of policy is much more complex, and that may be even more the case for ccTLDs. It was our belief that to present just pure sources of policy would be incomplete. The ICG could decide that we are wrong on that. At this stage, the CWG needs to evaluate our approach and recommend changes if they think they are needed. I’m open to support or opposition to those points, but it makes no sense for me to dip into the document and change things unless we have agreement on those points. [Chuck Gomes] Agreement in the CWG is what we are currently trying to get. If changes need to be made to get agreement, then we need specific suggestions as to what changes are proposed and then discussion in the CWG to see if we have consensus on the changes. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG’s RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled “Policy sources” and asks for “the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as “Policy, Principles and Guidelines” and the comment says it was “changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included.” I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don’t change the RFP. Let’s not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC “principles and guidelines” or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that “must be followed by the IANA functions operator” then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don’t include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC’s Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a “description of how policy is developed” (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC’s role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika’s comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) – is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

Milton, Speaking just in my personal capacity, I think that will have to be decided when we develop accountability mechanisms. And I expect that ccTLD community members will have a lot to say about that because they understand their world a lot better than I do. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Great, that answers one of my questions. You see, it was worth asking. As for what question I was asking it was stated very clearly in the original message: are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? The information below tells us that it _is_ considered a “source of policy” From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:03 AM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Milton, Here is some other information relating to this thread that was brought to my attention. On the GAC Principles thing they are formally referred to in the NTIA contract as follows: C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) --The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. As such this refers to two main sources of policy for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs which were not developed in the ICANN bottom-up policy dev. model. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:29 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks Milton. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]<mailto:[mailto:mueller@syr.edu]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hi, Chuck, we are not at the level of specific edits yet, though a few of my comments cold be translated into those and I will do that at an appropriate time. [Chuck Gomes] I have two questions: 1) Who is ‘we’?; 2) why are we not at the level of specific edits yet? I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? [Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue for ccTLDs. I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to respond. Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect the expertise of those from the ccTLD community. If not, then we can describe them as part of the policy process. If you do, then we can leave it as it. [Chuck Gomes] Could you make specific suggestions regarding how you would do this? This is an example where redline changes would make it much easier for staff to respond and for the rest of us to evaluate the changes. Because there are such a large number of people in the CWG (and that is good), managing the edits to documents could become an excessively challenging process for the few people who are responsible for that. Similarly, I just want to ask why we are including the IANA contract as a source of policy from the names community. [Chuck Gomes] It is not being included as a source of policy. That is just one example of why we changed the section title. Another example is the GAC principles. I understand that in a normal business environment that respondents would not change the wording from an RFP but I don’t think that we are a normal business environment. More importantly, it is my impression that the ICG with good intentions tried to create an RFP as a one size fits all for all three of the areas that need to respond. But in the case of names, the source of policy is much more complex, and that may be even more the case for ccTLDs. It was our belief that to present just pure sources of policy would be incomplete. The ICG could decide that we are wrong on that. At this stage, the CWG needs to evaluate our approach and recommend changes if they think they are needed. I’m open to support or opposition to those points, but it makes no sense for me to dip into the document and change things unless we have agreement on those points. [Chuck Gomes] Agreement in the CWG is what we are currently trying to get. If changes need to be made to get agreement, then we need specific suggestions as to what changes are proposed and then discussion in the CWG to see if we have consensus on the changes. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG’s RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled “Policy sources” and asks for “the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as “Policy, Principles and Guidelines” and the comment says it was “changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included.” I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don’t change the RFP. Let’s not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC “principles and guidelines” or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that “must be followed by the IANA functions operator” then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don’t include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC’s Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a “description of how policy is developed” (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC’s role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika’s comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) – is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

If this needs to be reflected in Proposal 2A, we need someone from the ccTLDs to draft the language and identify where it should go. Chuck From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 11:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft The question is of course a little more complex. The ccNSO considers that disputes about ccTLD management should generally be resolved in-country/territory by “significantly interested parties” as defined in RFC 1591. The 2005 Principles, by their terms, apply in those situations where the local government and the ccTLD manager agree that they apply. If “significantly interested parties” have agreed that the GAC Principles apply to a particular ccTLD, the ccNSO would respect that. In any case, one would at least need to ask whether, with respect to a particular ccTLD, significantly interested parties have adopted the GAC Principles (2005). In addition, the GAC considers their 2005 Principles on del/redel to be formal “Advice” subject to Bylaw mandated consultation, etc. They are part of the mix of issues to be considered. I don’t want to speak for all of the ccTLD operators, but I am comfortable reflecting this in the documentation. 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<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>'" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Milton, Speaking just in my personal capacity, I think that will have to be decided when we develop accountability mechanisms. And I expect that ccTLD community members will have a lot to say about that because they understand their world a lot better than I do. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Great, that answers one of my questions. You see, it was worth asking. As for what question I was asking it was stated very clearly in the original message: are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? The information below tells us that it _is_ considered a “source of policy” From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:03 AM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Milton, Here is some other information relating to this thread that was brought to my attention. On the GAC Principles thing they are formally referred to in the NTIA contract as follows: C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) --The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. As such this refers to two main sources of policy for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs which were not developed in the ICANN bottom-up policy dev. model. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:29 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks Milton. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]<mailto:[mailto:mueller@syr.edu]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hi, Chuck, we are not at the level of specific edits yet, though a few of my comments cold be translated into those and I will do that at an appropriate time. [Chuck Gomes] I have two questions: 1) Who is ‘we’?; 2) why are we not at the level of specific edits yet? I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the “principles and guidelines” provided by GAC and CCNSO to be “criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator” or not? [Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue for ccTLDs. I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to respond. Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect the expertise of those from the ccTLD community. If not, then we can describe them as part of the policy process. If you do, then we can leave it as it. [Chuck Gomes] Could you make specific suggestions regarding how you would do this? This is an example where redline changes would make it much easier for staff to respond and for the rest of us to evaluate the changes. Because there are such a large number of people in the CWG (and that is good), managing the edits to documents could become an excessively challenging process for the few people who are responsible for that. Similarly, I just want to ask why we are including the IANA contract as a source of policy from the names community. [Chuck Gomes] It is not being included as a source of policy. That is just one example of why we changed the section title. Another example is the GAC principles. I understand that in a normal business environment that respondents would not change the wording from an RFP but I don’t think that we are a normal business environment. More importantly, it is my impression that the ICG with good intentions tried to create an RFP as a one size fits all for all three of the areas that need to respond. But in the case of names, the source of policy is much more complex, and that may be even more the case for ccTLDs. It was our belief that to present just pure sources of policy would be incomplete. The ICG could decide that we are wrong on that. At this stage, the CWG needs to evaluate our approach and recommend changes if they think they are needed. I’m open to support or opposition to those points, but it makes no sense for me to dip into the document and change things unless we have agreement on those points. [Chuck Gomes] Agreement in the CWG is what we are currently trying to get. If changes need to be made to get agreement, then we need specific suggestions as to what changes are proposed and then discussion in the CWG to see if we have consensus on the changes. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.e...>] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG’s RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled “Policy sources” and asks for “the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as “Policy, Principles and Guidelines” and the comment says it was “changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included.” I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don’t change the RFP. Let’s not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC “principles and guidelines” or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that “must be followed by the IANA functions operator” then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don’t include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC’s Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a “description of how policy is developed” (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC’s role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika’s comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) – is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

As Bernie indicated, he has already taken care of this and we will see it redlined in the next version of 2A. Chuck From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 3:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Burr, Becky; Milton L Mueller; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft At your orders Erick El 6/11/2014, a las 13:40, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió: If this needs to be reflected in Proposal 2A, we need someone from the ccTLDs to draft the language and identify where it should go. Chuck From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 11:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft The question is of course a little more complex. The ccNSO considers that disputes about ccTLD management should generally be resolved in-country/territory by "significantly interested parties" as defined in RFC 1591. The 2005 Principles, by their terms, apply in those situations where the local government and the ccTLD manager agree that they apply. If "significantly interested parties" have agreed that the GAC Principles apply to a particular ccTLD, the ccNSO would respect that. In any case, one would at least need to ask whether, with respect to a particular ccTLD, significantly interested parties have adopted the GAC Principles (2005). In addition, the GAC considers their 2005 Principles on del/redel to be formal "Advice" subject to Bylaw mandated consultation, etc. They are part of the mix of issues to be considered. I don't want to speak for all of the ccTLD operators, but I am comfortable reflecting this in the documentation. 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<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>'" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Milton, Speaking just in my personal capacity, I think that will have to be decided when we develop accountability mechanisms. And I expect that ccTLD community members will have a lot to say about that because they understand their world a lot better than I do. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Great, that answers one of my questions. You see, it was worth asking. As for what question I was asking it was stated very clearly in the original message: are we considering the "principles and guidelines" provided by GAC and CCNSO to be "criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator" or not? The information below tells us that it _is_ considered a "source of policy" From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:03 AM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Milton, Here is some other information relating to this thread that was brought to my attention. On the GAC Principles thing they are formally referred to in the NTIA contract as follows: C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) --The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. As such this refers to two main sources of policy for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs which were not developed in the ICANN bottom-up policy dev. model. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:29 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks Milton. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]<mailto:[mailto:mueller@syr.edu]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hi, Chuck, we are not at the level of specific edits yet, though a few of my comments cold be translated into those and I will do that at an appropriate time. [Chuck Gomes] I have two questions: 1) Who is 'we'?; 2) why are we not at the level of specific edits yet? I am asking more fundamental questions about approach. Most importantly, are we considering the "principles and guidelines" provided by GAC and CCNSO to be "criteria that must be followed by the IANA functions operator" or not? [Chuck Gomes] I cannot answer that because I think that is an issue for ccTLDs. I would encourage those from the ccTLD community to respond. Besides serving as the coordinator for this subgroup, I have primarily contributed to the gTLD side and tried to rely and respect the expertise of those from the ccTLD community. If not, then we can describe them as part of the policy process. If you do, then we can leave it as it. [Chuck Gomes] Could you make specific suggestions regarding how you would do this? This is an example where redline changes would make it much easier for staff to respond and for the rest of us to evaluate the changes. Because there are such a large number of people in the CWG (and that is good), managing the edits to documents could become an excessively challenging process for the few people who are responsible for that. Similarly, I just want to ask why we are including the IANA contract as a source of policy from the names community. [Chuck Gomes] It is not being included as a source of policy. That is just one example of why we changed the section title. Another example is the GAC principles. I understand that in a normal business environment that respondents would not change the wording from an RFP but I don't think that we are a normal business environment. More importantly, it is my impression that the ICG with good intentions tried to create an RFP as a one size fits all for all three of the areas that need to respond. But in the case of names, the source of policy is much more complex, and that may be even more the case for ccTLDs. It was our belief that to present just pure sources of policy would be incomplete. The ICG could decide that we are wrong on that. At this stage, the CWG needs to evaluate our approach and recommend changes if they think they are needed. I'm open to support or opposition to those points, but it makes no sense for me to dip into the document and change things unless we have agreement on those points. [Chuck Gomes] Agreement in the CWG is what we are currently trying to get. If changes need to be made to get agreement, then we need specific suggestions as to what changes are proposed and then discussion in the CWG to see if we have consensus on the changes. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:40 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Thanks for reviewing the document Milton. I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today: Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.e...>] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:'cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft Hello, Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG's RFP. Section 2A of the RFP is entitled "Policy sources" and asks for "the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above. So someone has re-labeled the response as "Policy, Principles and Guidelines" and the comment says it was "changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included." I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don't change the RFP. Let's not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC "principles and guidelines" or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that "must be followed by the IANA functions operator" then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don't include them. If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC's Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a "description of how policy is developed" (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC's role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here. I agree with Marika's comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions. I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) - is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman. I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that. Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship