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: 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. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. 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
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: 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. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. 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
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:
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. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. 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
If I may just suggest a friendly thought-amendment (it doesn't rise to amendment of text): On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 07:31:46PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
need to find (or create) instead is a valid *representative* group (or
I think we don't actually need a _representative_ group as such, because that tends to open important and legitimate questions about how we are sure that the group accurately represents the (relevant) population generally. Instead, it really ought to be a group that gives voice to a spectrum view and attempts to express a set of interests. Those interests are not necessarily _represented_, but they must be reflected somehow in the positions the group takes. In this case, it is the "names community", which is all the people whose interests and concerns are affected by decisions about the IANA names registries and how those interact with the relevant IPR. (To draw an analogy, the IETF is certainly not a "representative" group of Internet protocol parameter users, since it's pretty obvious to anyone who has met an IETFer that we're a very poor cross-section of all Internet users. Have you seen our habits of dress? And since everyone who has ever used Internet ports 80 or 443 -- i.e. approximately everyone on the Internet is affected -- is implicated in protocol parameters, there must be something else at stake.) I'm not sure how to express that, but the point is that the concerned operational community -- the people who attend to these issues at the top-most policy layers of the domain name system -- have themselves an interest in making sure that the overall name system remains robust and viable precisely because their own (enlightened self-) interests depend on that overall system viability. I don't know whether that helps, but it seems to me to align with the overall idea that the "names operational community" that comes together through ICANN processes must look out for the good of the name system, or the name system will itself fail and be supplanted by something else. I hope that is useful, even if rather vague. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Greg, I see it as two steps: 1) define the community; 2) decide who can best represent that community. Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately do their job. 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<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: 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. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. 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
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
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<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
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
#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<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
Greg: This appears to be unnecessarily complicated for an entity that does not formally exist: the 'names community'. What is wrong with ICANN just signing the IANA IPR agreement? CW On 01 Sep 2016, at 00:00, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Dear Grec, Thank you very much for your in-depth thought and valuable contribution. That would be very useful to start animating Names Community . Please kindly advise how you wish to further explore these thoughts Kavouss 2016-09-01 0:00 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
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:
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. GNSO and ccNSO 5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC 6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC 7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC 8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations 9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions represented on the CSC) 10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC) 11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures 12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure 13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures 14. 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
participants (6)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji