Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal. On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future. Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: #3 might be worth exploring further. Chuck *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Thank you for these very helpful comments. We may be overthinking things a bit. The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope. Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups. Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives. ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory. At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are: 1. The CWG 2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG 3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) 4. The CSC Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested. Chuck *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Hello, Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” 2) decide who can best represent that community. SO: I see two aspects here: 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG. Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders
of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters
including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader
than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Provisionally, we have ended up with: a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs. Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders
of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
s@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Greg and others, Apologies, for the slow response. I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with: The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through: a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter b) Their Chairs Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 01 September 2016 22:55 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Provisionally, we have ended up with: a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs. Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote: Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal. On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future. Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> > wrote: #3 might be worth exploring further. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Thank you for these very helpful comments. We may be overthinking things a bit. The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope. Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups. Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives. ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory. At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them are the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are: 1. The CWG 2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG 3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) 4. The CSC Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> > wrote: I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> ; Greg Shatan Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Hello, Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> > wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” 2) decide who can best represent that community. SO: I see two aspects here: 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG. Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> > wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the ‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Mr. Robinson We can not established a legal entity through CWG . If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community" through CWG which established by Chartering organizations That does not work We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT and Paste Regards Arasteh 2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Greg and others,
Apologies, for the slow response.
I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with:
The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
b) Their Chairs
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Provisionally, we have ended up with:
a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders
of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Based on my understanding of the advice received from Sidley, as CWG's counsel, I do not believe that any legal entity needs to be formed. The CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this particular action. After the initial appointment of representatives, the Names Operational Community can then act under the Community Agreement through the Names Co-Chair. If ICANN does anything that the Names Operational Community objects to, and it can't be resolved through discussions, the Names Community can replace ICANN as the signatory. In the unlikely event that more severe problems arise, we should be able to use the Empowered Community to deal with ICANN. We should run this by Sidley to confirm that no legal entity needs to be created in the situation discussed above. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Robinson We can not established a legal entity through CWG . If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community" through CWG which established by Chartering organizations That does not work We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT and Paste Regards Arasteh
2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Greg and others,
Apologies, for the slow response.
I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with:
The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
b) Their Chairs
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Provisionally, we have ended up with:
a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future
stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight
of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
s@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
That sounds reasonable to my non-legal mind Greg. I do have one concern though: It seems to me that this statement is a little weak: “we should be able to use the Empowered Community”. If we cannot use the Empowered Community, what would we do if severe problems occurred, however unlikely? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 9:13 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Based on my understanding of the advice received from Sidley, as CWG's counsel, I do not believe that any legal entity needs to be formed. The CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this particular action. After the initial appointment of representatives, the Names Operational Community can then act under the Community Agreement through the Names Co-Chair. If ICANN does anything that the Names Operational Community objects to, and it can't be resolved through discussions, the Names Community can replace ICANN as the signatory. In the unlikely event that more severe problems arise, we should be able to use the Empowered Community to deal with ICANN. We should run this by Sidley to confirm that no legal entity needs to be created in the situation discussed above. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Mr. Robinson We can not established a legal entity through CWG . If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community" through CWG which established by Chartering organizations That does not work We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT and Paste Regards Arasteh 2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>: Greg and others, Apologies, for the slow response. I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with: The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through: a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter b) Their Chairs Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: 01 September 2016 22:55 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Provisionally, we have ended up with: a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs. Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal. On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future. Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: #3 might be worth exploring further. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Thank you for these very helpful comments. We may be overthinking things a bit. The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope. Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups. Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives. ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory. At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them are the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are: 1. The CWG 2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG 3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) 4. The CSC Greg On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Greg Shatan Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" Hello, Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” 2) decide who can best represent that community. SO: I see two aspects here: 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG. Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the ‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear All, I am sorry to say that I do not agree that "*The CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this particular action"* CWG .IS NOT ALEGAL ENTITY thus can not request the ICANN to sign on its behalf. What Sidley said is the views of Sidley. PERHAPS they want to cut and paste the legal necessity. All six chartering Organization authorized CWG to act on behalf of Names Community studying the transition issue could form an unincorporated Association to a have a legal existence and then authorize ICANN TO SIGN ON ITS BEHALF The issue of being party to an agreement is not limited to signing that agreement but it would be a continued process to implement the terms and conditions of agreement and in case of difficulties stand before the Court vis a vis other parties. Moreover, neither CWG nor its two co chairs have a permanent existence and thus not appropriate to perform the tasks mentioned above. The appointment was for specific terms and not permanent . You can not oversimplify the tasks This is against all legal principles Regards Arasteh. 2016-09-06 3:13 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Based on my understanding of the advice received from Sidley, as CWG's counsel, I do not believe that any legal entity needs to be formed. The CWG can request that ICANN sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the "Names" Operational Community and communicate the appointment of the initial CCG representatives by the CWG. We have been acting on behalf of the Names Operational Community for 2 years now in relation to ICANN; there is no reason at this late date that we need a legal entity to take this particular action.
After the initial appointment of representatives, the Names Operational Community can then act under the Community Agreement through the Names Co-Chair. If ICANN does anything that the Names Operational Community objects to, and it can't be resolved through discussions, the Names Community can replace ICANN as the signatory. In the unlikely event that more severe problems arise, we should be able to use the Empowered Community to deal with ICANN.
We should run this by Sidley to confirm that no legal entity needs to be created in the situation discussed above.
Best regards,
Greg
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Mr. Robinson We can not established a legal entity through CWG . If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community" through CWG which established by Chartering organizations That does not work We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT and Paste Regards Arasteh
2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Greg and others,
Apologies, for the slow response.
I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with:
The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
b) Their Chairs
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Provisionally, we have ended up with:
a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of
the "Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future
stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have
correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight
of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
s@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Jonathan, Thanks. I think it is a more accurate representation. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Greg and others,
Apologies, for the slow response.
I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with:
The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
a) The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
b) Their Chairs
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Provisionally, we have ended up with:
a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them *are* the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1. The CWG
2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4. The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job.
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
Chuck,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement.
Consider the following:
How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders
of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions.
As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions:
Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
parameters including individuals and organizations
While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions.
· I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
community out.
· Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
‘Names Community’.
· It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’.
· A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out.
Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order:
The CWG All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) GNSO and ccNSO GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC GNSO, ccNSO and GAC GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) Any other combination of ICANN-created structures An existing non-ICANN-created structure A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures A completely new structure
ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community."
The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including:
Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) Instructing the CCG Representatives Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. Withdrawing from the Community Agreement Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well).
Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree - thanks both. On 05/09/2016 21:06, Greg Shatan wrote:
Jonathan,
Thanks. I think it is a more accurate representation.
Best regards,
Greg
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
Greg and others,
Apologies, for the slow response.
I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up with:
The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
a)The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
b)Their Chairs
Jonathan
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Provisionally, we have ended up with:
a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring future.
Regards 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
#3 might be worth exploring further.
Chuck
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Thank you for these very helpful comments.
We may be overthinking things a bit.
The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has done some very significant things acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the "Names Community." This isn't much more than an implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated above and in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.). So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them _are_ the Names Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
1.The CWG
2.All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
3.An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
4.The CSC
Greg
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
Chuck
*From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Greg Shatan
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
Hello,
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: > > Greg, > > > I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a good start:
“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”
2) decide who can best represent that community.
SO: I see two aspects here:
1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe this should be ICANN
2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
> Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job. > SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who are not members/participants of CWG.
Regards > > > Chuck > > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" > > > > Chuck, > > > > Thanks for getting the ball rolling. > > > > Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a practical answer under these circumstances. It does however help clarify and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer. > > > > The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email). The way the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the Names Community. Thinking about this after your email, I think what we need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of this Agreement. > > > > Consider the following: > > > > How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the actions needed underthe Community Agreement ? > > > > Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community? > > > > As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names Community. Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising stewardship and accountability functions. > > > > As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively. Consider how the definition you propose compares to these definitions. Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following parallel definitions: > > > > Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP address numbers including individuals and organizations > > RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters including individuals and organizations > > > > While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement. Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger communities. We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community. > > > > Greg > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: > > Thanks for getting this started Greg. Here are my first reactions. > > · I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name community out. > > · Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the ‘Names Community’. > > · It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the ‘Names Community’. > > · A general definition may be the best way to go, one that doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will likely leave some out. > > > > Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.” I welcome critique of my thoughts and my suggestion. > > > > Chuck > > > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM > To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community" > > > > On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email. > > > > We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement. The role of the Names Community in this Agreement is outlined below. > > > > Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community," which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness and in no particular order: > > > > The CWG > All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG > An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations) > GNSO and ccNSO > GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC > GNSO, ccNSO and GAC > GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC > Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations > The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) > The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) > Any other combination of ICANN-created structures > An existing non-ICANN-created structure > A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures > A completely new structure > > ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names Community." > > > > The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where appropriate, including: > > > > Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community > Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust > Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process) > Instructing the CCG Representatives > Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.) > Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License Agreement > Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be CSC/IFR work in substance). > Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its License Agreement. > Withdrawing from the Community Agreement > Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG) > Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things) > > Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may have, as well). > > > > Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially). > > > > Thank you for your consideration of these issues. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
participants (6)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Kavouss Arasteh -
matthew shears -
Seun Ojedeji