A liaison from the Board to CWG
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html ) It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added? At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily. In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise. Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue. Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now. Best regards, John Poole
Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct? Regards CW On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added?
At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement, Affirmation of Commitments) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, e.g., when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue.
Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now.
Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement. Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct?
Regards
CW
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added?
At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue.
Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now.
Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement. For those of you not familiar with the idiom, turn-key means a solution that is 100% ready to operate upon arrival, like turning a key in the ignition of a new car and driving away in it. I would caution you against accepting this dictum, Greg. This “turn-key” fantasy is really just one of the subtle ways of stacking the deck against proposals that aren’t what they had in mind. It is also a product of a kind of unjustified panic that the 2016 Presidential elections in the US might abort the transition. In reality there is no such thing as a turn-key IANA transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going to have to be described in the final proposal and implemented over a period of months. And a transition that is already underway in 2015 will not be aborted if it has widespread public support. As for the NTIA, they are going into public hearings in a few days and they are in no position to suddenly invent or impose arbitrary limitations or restrictions on what is an acceptable proposal. They have set forth their criteria publicly and that is what the community at large and the ICG will use as the basis for evaluation. Let us have no more talk, based on hallway whispers, about new demands or conditions regarding what the NTIA wants. If it is not in the publicly available criteria, it isn’t a factor. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Hi Greg, 2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured. So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement.
Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people.
Greg
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct?
Regards
CW
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added?
At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue.
Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> (" iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now.
Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Seun, Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of these as exactly that, very useful references. Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 21:37 To: Greg Shatan Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Hi Greg, 2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured. So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement. Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct? Regards CW On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html ) It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added? At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily. In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/> , Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...> ) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise. Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, e.g., when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue. Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org <http://iana.org/> "and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now. Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong. But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty. I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Seun,
Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of these as exactly that, very useful references.
Jonathan
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* 23 February 2015 21:37 *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG
Hi Greg,
2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured.
So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted.
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement.
Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people.
Greg
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct?
Regards
CW
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg:
I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added?
At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue.
Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now.
Best regards,
John Poole
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Hi Greg, I see your point, however the fact still remain that the CWG at the moment don't even have skeletal transition plan yet. i.e we have not even gotten close to the state of the response made by other communities. So it's not only about what is sent to ICG because the entire details will still need to be done before the transition anyway. For me the question is whether it is strategic enough to start working on details when appropriate plan has not been decided upon. However considering that the plan development process has been put on halt pending legal[1] perhaps getting details of non-proposal specific issues is a good use of our time. This does not mean that the details would/should be sent ICG. Nevertheless, I am not against asking ICG for such clarification question. I just think we already have a real source of answer (which is the submission of the RIR and IETF) Regards 1. Which I doubt will do the magic of resolving our fundamental differences/issues sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Feb 2015 23:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal.
For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?
Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between?
For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one?
I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong.
But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty.
I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended?
Greg
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info
wrote:
Thanks Seun,
Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of these as exactly that, very useful references.
Jonathan
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* 23 February 2015 21:37 *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG
Hi Greg,
2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured.
So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted.
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement.
Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people.
Greg
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct?
Regards
CW
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg:
I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added?
At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue.
Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> (" iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now.
Best regards,
John Poole
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Hi Greg, your points made to ask for more clarity on the implementation details to be included in the proposals are fair. The implementation question was raised by Larry Strickling in Singapore, and since them I feel – having had several discussions – that there is a broad range of understanding within the various communities what does this mean. I’ve taken this to initiate a discussion at the next ICG call (tomorrow). I hope the ICG could find common understanding within relatively short time. The outcome may – or may not – have also an impact on the protocols and numbers proposals. A related CWG request to the ICG may be helpful. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: John Poole ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong. But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty. I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: Thanks Seun, Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of these as exactly that, very useful references. Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 21:37 To: Greg Shatan Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Hi Greg, 2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured. So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement. Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct? Regards CW On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html ) It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added? At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily. In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement, Affirmation of Commitments) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise. Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, e.g., when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue. Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now. Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
It seems to me that Larry told us how much detail to provide: enough to be able to implement the transition. To me that is pretty clear. For anything that has to happen with the transition, a skeleton would not be sufficient. That said, could there be items in the plan that could be refined after the transition because they are longer term possibilities? I think so but we would have to have enough detail to be assured that they are feasible and implementable. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:24 AM To: Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] implementation Hi Greg, your points made to ask for more clarity on the implementation details to be included in the proposals are fair. The implementation question was raised by Larry Strickling in Singapore, and since them I feel – having had several discussions – that there is a broad range of understanding within the various communities what does this mean. I’ve taken this to initiate a discussion at the next ICG call (tomorrow). I hope the ICG could find common understanding within relatively short time. The outcome may – or may not – have also an impact on the protocols and numbers proposals. A related CWG request to the ICG may be helpful. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM To: Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: John Poole<mailto:jp1@expri.com> ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong. But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty. I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Thanks Seun, Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of these as exactly that, very useful references. Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: 23 February 2015 21:37 To: Greg Shatan Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Hi Greg, 2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured. So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal. A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be sent back as incomplete. It may be possible to engage in some informal discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA Functions Agreement. Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be remunerated by ICANN. Everyone else is a volunteer. That said, for some people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or client. So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
… unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers. Correct? Regards CW On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1@expri.com<mailto:jp1@expri.com>> wrote: Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg: I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole, and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my earlier post to Avri http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html ) It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course, relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as amended<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team: IANA Service Levels<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is missing, needs to be changed, or added? At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily. In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement<http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation of Commitments<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>) and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential liabilities, antitrust or otherwise. Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and counsel for ICANN's Board, e.g., when governments or others complain about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely, post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical, somewhat sensitive issue. Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by the IETF proposal <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org<http://iana.org/>"and other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership needs to be clear about that now. Best regards, John Poole _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:53:11PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It seems to me that Larry told us how much detail to provide: enough to be able to implement the transition.
There have been some observations about testing it, too. It's very hard to test someting that has no details, but you can test a framework. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Not just testing -- Stress Testing various scenarios against the proposed detailed framework. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:05 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] implementation Hi, On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:53:11PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It seems to me that Larry told us how much detail to provide: enough to be able to implement the transition.
There have been some observations about testing it, too. It's very hard to test someting that has no details, but you can test a framework. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. MM: OK, we will be discussing that in our next ICG meeting. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? MM: This is a very good example of why we need to be flexible and turn away from any turn-key fantasies. In some cases it will be fine to have a solid implementation plan, and trust the relevant operational community to take the additional steps. In other cases it may be advisable to have more detail. In some cases we may even need a fully-drafted contract. To specify one or the other of these options rigidly and in advance is not very wise, in my opinion. If the ICG, or the public comment period on the final proposal, indicate serious gaps in implementation detail that need to be addressed, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? MM: same comment as above. For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? MM: For something of that importance I am sure all parties to this proposal process would demand something more than a “mention.” I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? MM: Intent is not the critical factor here, practicality is. I personally see no problem with withholding termination of the contract for a few months while implementation details are worked out.
My responses below: Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal.
MM: OK, we will be discussing that in our next ICG meeting.
GS: Good, thanks.
For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?
MM: This is a very good example of why we need to be flexible and turn away from any turn-key fantasies. In some cases it will be fine to have a solid implementation plan, and trust the relevant operational community to take the additional steps. In other cases it may be advisable to have more detail. In some cases we may even need a fully-drafted contract. To specify one or the other of these options rigidly and in advance is not very wise, in my opinion. If the ICG, or the public comment period on the final proposal, indicate serious gaps in implementation detail that need to be addressed, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
GS: I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more. Our job is big no matter where you define the boundaries. Of course, anything we don't do now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation Team"?) later.
Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between?
MM: same comment as above.
For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one?
MM: For something of that importance I am sure all parties to this proposal process would demand something more than a “mention.”
I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended?
MM: Intent is not the critical factor here, practicality is. I personally see no problem with withholding termination of the contract for a few months while implementation details are worked out.
GS: Hopefully, intent is based on practicality. I also personally see no problem with a two-phase process, and it would seem (upon review of the other two proposals) that all 3 communities assumed that would be the case. But our personal feelings don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world....
GS: I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more. Our job is big no matter where you define the boundaries. Of course, anything we don't do now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation Team"?) later. This is why I am somewhat dismissive of the turnkey concept. Turnkey says, we must do ALL the work IN ADVANCE. It does _not_ reduce the amount of work. Therefore it does _not_ reduce the amount of time taken by developing a transition plan. Indeed, by forcing pre-definition of complex arrangements in advance, it might actually take more time. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Milton, I don't like it any more than you do, and for the same reasons.... I think we are on the same page. Now we just need to see what the ICG (as a whole) determines to be the case. Presumably, this will require some reference to the NTIA, since they are the final arbiter of what is acceptable. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
GS: I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more. Our job is big no matter where you define the boundaries. Of course, anything we don't do now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation Team"?) later.
This is why I am somewhat dismissive of the turnkey concept. Turnkey says, we must do ALL the work IN ADVANCE. It does _*not*_ reduce the amount of work. Therefore it does _*not*_ reduce the amount of time taken by developing a transition plan. Indeed, by forcing pre-definition of complex arrangements in advance, it might actually take more time.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
participants (10)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
John Poole -
Jonathan Robinson -
Milton L Mueller -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji -
WUKnoben