August 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Chairing - way forward
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 12, 2014

Aug. 12, 2014

Hi all, Thanks to everyone for engaging on the topic of chair structure. Taking in all of the in-person and email discussion thus far, I think we have a viable path forward. My observations are: 1. In response to the compromise I suggested on July 31 [i], the group demonstrated broad support for a 1+2 structure, with an objection from Jean-Jacques and ALAC. This included support from people who had previously stated preferences for other structures, and even support from people who had previously said they could not live with 1+2. This is what some people might call “consensus” and what I would normally describe as “rough consensus” in support of 1+2. 2. We have very strong support for a “1+something” chair structure, following the recent mail from Jean-Jacques [ii]. I don’t think we have anyone objecting to 1+something at this point. 3. We have had lengthy discussions on the list about geographic diversity. We have very strong support in the group for having geographically diverse participation throughout the stewardship transition plan development process. We have differences of opinion within the group about the extent to which that diversity must be required to extend to the chairs of the ICG. 4. We have a demonstrated need to agree within the ICG about the methods, both electronic and in-person, that we will use to arrive at and judge consensus within this group going forward. Taking the above into consideration, let's proceed as follows: Go forward with a 1+2 structure — 1 chair and 2 vice-chairs. I believe the current list of people who have volunteered to serve in these roles is: Russ Housley Patrik Fälström Mohamed El Bashir Keith Drazek Alissa Cooper (I do not think we need re-confirmations from the above people because they have mostly re-confirmed already on the list at some point over the last several weeks, but if any of the above listed people wants to withdraw, please say so.) Taking the suggestion from Jean-Jacques, I think we should give people a few more days to volunteer. So if you would like to volunteer, please make that known on the list by August 11, 23:59 UTC. On August 12, Joe, who previously agreed to detail the chair roles and run the selection process [iii], and Wolf-Ulrich, who has agreed to help Joe while Joe is traveling, will launch the selection process. In making their selections, ICG participants should take the geographic diversity discussions we’ve had into account. Joe and Wolf-Ulrich will also begin drafting a proposal that describes the methods the group will use for arriving at and judging consensus going forward, and will make that proposal available to the group for discussion when it is ready. Thanks, Alissa [i] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000582.html [ii] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000769.html [iii] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000381.html

13 13

Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
by Patrik Fältström Aug. 12, 2014

Aug. 12, 2014

All, I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained. This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people: A. Members of the ICG B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA) C. Support Staff (from ICANN) D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN) The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course. When validating these four groups I found out a few things: Group A consists of the following people: ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir ASO Hartmut Glaser ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy Group B contains: Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people: Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process. Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support. Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website. In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are: Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend. Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support. Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team. Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. When we need to come to consensus about something, the consensus should be among the members, not members+liaisons. We can solicit advice and opinions from the liaisons, but they should not otherwise be involved in consensus gathering or writing the group’s output. I think it is inappropriate for people who are employed by ICANN or who have fiduciary responsibility to ICANN to be otherwise involved in discussions and decisions about the future of the oversight of one of the ICANN departments. I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London. Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). 2. Support staff Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice. Suggestion: We accept the proposal from ICANN to until further notice from ICG continue with this set of support staff: Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary. 3. Interim appointed GAC member Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members. Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. 4. Minutes of our meeting Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature. Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat. Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). 5. ICANN backup contacts As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already. Suggestion: We support ICANN in this proposal, thanks Jamie and Grace for their ability to help, and I validate the situation that they have been removed from the mailing list and that way got special treatment compared with other ICANN staff. 6. Write access to our documents Everyone is to be given read access to our documents. Question is who should get read/write access. We have a number of alternatives here, and which one we choose depends on what answers we get on the questions above. Alternative A: Members only Today members of ICG do have write access, and update of documents there depends on members doing explicit actions. Alternative B: Members + liaisons To make feedback loop from liaisons easier, we also give write access for liaisons. This do give ability for liaisons to write in documents, which might be preferable for example in the form of change tags in Word documents. Alternative C: Members + Support Staff By letting support staff write to documents members will be relieved from the task of updating documents and otherwise do purely administerial tasks. Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff A merge of alternative B and C. In reality it implies (given my suggestion on issue 5 above finds consensus in ICG) that all members of this mailing list do get read/write access to the documents. Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.

17 30

Revised RFP
by Milton L Mueller Aug. 11, 2014

Aug. 11, 2014

Dear colleagues I spent some time thinking about the RFP and how it could be improved and came up with the attached draft, which is also in Dropbox. I changed some language in the preamble, with some comments in Word explaining why. The main change, however is one of format. I think when commnities fill out this form we will need a clear distinction between what their requirements, policy processes, etc. are NOW, and what they are proposing to CHANGE. Therefore I have created a series of tables that lines up Current arrangements from Proposed arrangements. This should make it clearer what exactly they are proposing to change and what the implications might be. Take a look Milton L Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: RFP comments due Aug 1
by James M. Bladel Aug. 11, 2014

Aug. 11, 2014

Agree with Milton and note that this was one of the reasons that the timeline seemed aggressive. Thanks‹ J. On 8/1/14, 1:09 , "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >Due to a summer school I'm involved in I won't be able to provide a >revised draft by today. I could do so early next week. As I argued >before, there is no need to rush this one as the names communities have >not even constituted a body to receive it yet. I consider the RFP the >most complicated and important thing we are working on right now and >would firmly resist efforts to rush it through. > >--MM > >-----Original Message----- >From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:05 PM >To: ICG >Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: RFP comments due Aug 1 > >Please respond to the ³Redraft of RFP² thread started by Paul by Aug 1, >20:00 UTC. >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000435.html > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 3

London Meeting Minutes v2 / Matrix v3
by Daniel Karrenberg Aug. 11, 2014

Aug. 11, 2014

On behalf of Samantha Dickinson I have just uploaded new files regarding our London meeting to our dropbox folder "First meeting": Minutes of first meeting of the Coordination Group - Day 1 - v2 Minutes of first meeting of the Coordination Group - Day 2 - v2 IANA steward correspondence group matrix - v3 Daniel

1 1

Fwd: ICG and Secretariat
by Adiel Akplogan Aug. 11, 2014

Aug. 11, 2014

Dear all, Please see below a communication from (Theresa Swinehart of ICANN) related to the secretariat function. I think that these infirmation will be useful to inform our discussion on the topic. Thanks. - a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICG and Secretariat > Date: August 8, 2014 at 07:55:15 AM GMT+4 > To: "Adiel A. Akplogan (Bbry)" <adiel(a)afrinic.net> > > Dear Adiel, > > We appreciate that the ICG is currently discussing how it would like to address Secretariat support, and is in the process of finalizing a document that outlines the Secretariat's roles and responsibilities. Developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) has also been discussed as a potential next step. > > I’d like to thank the group once more for allowing me the opportunity to provide preliminary input on this issue at the London meeting. As outlined in the process posted on 6 June 2014, ICANN is prepared to continue making available to the ICG a Secretariat and is committed to facilitating the process in a neutral manner, consistent with its role as a convener. As the ICG reaches agreement on the level and type of support it seeks, the following additional points may be useful, building on remarks previously shared in London. > > · As requested by the ICG, ICANN staff is providing secretariat, administrative and logistical support to the ICG. If there are areas of improvement, please let us know. One of the objectives is to ensure cost-effectiveness and efficient management of the allocated budget. As many know, ICANN provides secretariat services to its supporting organizations and has demonstrated high competency in providing these services. To this end, whatever future direction is decided upon, avoiding duplication of efforts is particularly important. > > · As asked in London, ICANN is prepared to continue delivering the support it currently provides as it is a natural component of the facilitation role that ICANN has been given. We are in a position to provide the ICG with dedicated staff that takes direction exclusively from the ICG and further formalize this arrangement including e.g the person(s) providing support having strictly understood confidentiality obligations and rights so as to maintain the confidence of – and separation – of the ICG work. This would include, of course, a direct reporting line to the ICG, and under no circumstances would the person(s) be responsible for work in ICANN’s IANA Functions department. Support delivered by staff in a neutral manner would contribute to maximizing the use of resources. > > Should the ICG seek a Secretariat function that is separate, but funded by ICANN, the following is relevant and consistent with ICANN's commitment to public accountability: > • ICANN must follow its disbursement policy prior to committing funds. As such, ICANN has a requirement to understand the amount that is anticipated to be spent to not only ensure it can be budgeted for in the process, but also to ensure correct approvals are obtained prior to committing to spend the funds through the release of an RFP. > • ICANN’s funds should be distributed through a direct contract with ICANN that includes clear deliverables and appropriate financial controls. ICANN can prepare the contract in a way that would give the ICG the ability to oversee the Secretariat’s work, including the ICG’s ability to approve invoices, etc. so long as work was performed in line with the contract. ICANN is not in a position to simply accept and pay invoices for work owed to a separate entity. > > • Transparency in process – we are advised both formally and informally of entities interested in providing Secretariat services independent of ICANN should the ICG go that route. This highlights the need to be transparent in the selection process through the issuance of an RFP. > > • Potential delay – the ICG’s work is proceeding; the issuance of an RFP, selection and on-boarding process could result in delay of the ICG’s work. In ICANN’s role as facilitator, it is our duty to point out impacts to the process. > In the event an RFP is issued, ICANN remains at the ICG's disposal for logistical support. We have examples of recently concluded RFPs (issued by ICANN) that were designed with our new Director of Procurement to encourage streamlined responses and, ultimately, ease of review. If issued, the RFP should align with this improved documentation. We can help with that effort. Should the ICG decide to continue using neutral ICANN staff support instead, we can explore further formalizing that implementation in further detail and establish an appropriate course of action. > > We are happy to answer any questions or requests for clarification you may have. > > Kind regards, > > Theresa

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Chair structure.
by Joe Alhadeff Aug. 10, 2014

Aug. 10, 2014

Colleagues: I may be confused here, but it seemed that we had come to a compromise of trying to take diversity into account in the 1+2 formulation. GAC wanted a breadth of representation for participaton, decision-making and review, we are just looking at meeting organisation in Chairs/vice chairs for which too many people may well be counter productive... Best- Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: glaser(a)cgi.br To: jjs(a)dyalog.net, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2014 10:40:30 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Chair structure. +1 If we accept 5 members from GAC to have better regional representation, I support the same arguments for the 1 chair + 4 vice-chairs proposal from ALAC . best Hartmut ======================================== On 07/08/14 05:01, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > as announced yesterday, I am now forwarding a proposal that the ALAC has developed for the Chair structure of our group. > > As you remember, in London the ALAC representatives were among the first to support the enlargement of the GAC contingent from 2 to 5, while ensuring that the ALAC, as a token of its commitment to keep the size of our group close to what it was, would not seek a similar privilege for itself. > > The ALAC's call for implementing the decision taken in London (3 Co-Chairs) was based on stated principles: diversity, adequate representation, fairness. While maintaining these principles, the ALAC is keen to help our process along by proposing a new structure, incorporating these principles as well as some elements discussed online since the London meeting. > > Here is the ALAC proposal: > > - Chair + 4 Vice-Chairs, these 5 being from the 5 different regions (as per ICANN practice). > > - No region or citizenship may occupy more than one of these positions. There shall be no automatic entitlement of any region to the position of Chair. > > - Process: > - Interim Chair is requested to launch a call for candidates for the 5 positions on the leadership team. It is suggested that these should reach Interim Chair by Monday 11 August at 23:59 UTC. > - Interim Chair would then publish the list of candidates, each with her/his relevant data (full name, business or other affiliation, organization represented, region, citizenship), and set a date for the vote. > - The result of the vote to be published immediately, and the new leadership to convene as soon as possible. > > In order to ensure adequate representation of the global Internet user community, Jean-Jacques Subrenat (European region, citizen of France) has decided to withdraw his candidacy for the position of Co-Chair, and is nominating Mohamed El-Bashir (African region, citizen of Sudan) for Vice-Chair. Mohamed has accepted to be nominated, and his candidacy is endorsed by the ALAC. > > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 6

Charter commenting - ALAC Comments ( Updated Charter Draft )
by Mohamed El Bashir Aug. 9, 2014

Aug. 9, 2014

Dear Colleagues, While ICG is finalizing the setup and publication of charter comments process, which i hope it can be published as as soon possible. I would like to provide you with ALAC comments on the draft ICG charter, ALAC has discussed been discussing the charter and we are proposing the attached updated charter document. The current draft charter is a too long document ( 6 pages ), not easy to ready and could be subject to different interpretations. The attached ALAC draft is one page only summarizing the charter objectives, attempting to make it easy to read and digest. It has contain ALAC comments in the latest charter draft. Thanks Kind Regards, Mohamed

4 4

Chair structure.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Aug. 9, 2014

Aug. 9, 2014

Dear Colleagues, within the next 2 days I hope to send you a constructive proposal, on behalf of the ALAC. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

9 12

Re: [Internal-cg] Teleconference - August 19, 12:00-14:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Aug. 8, 2014

Aug. 8, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information, call details are posted at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-07-en You should all have received a notification which outlines call details as well as an outlook calendar invite. Feel free to contact me (off list) should you have any questions or concerns. Thanks Best regards Alice On 8/7/14 7:58 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >We have a date and time for our teleconference: August 19, 12:00-14:00 >UTC. Please mark your calendars. I¹ve also attached a calendar invite. > >Alice will follow up with conference bridge details and will get a page >setup for a public announcement. I will follow up with a proposed agenda. > >Thanks, >Alissa > >

1 0