- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Narelle: on legitimacy
by Milton L Mueller July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Narelle: In politics the term legitimacy has almost nothing to do with legality. Things can be perfectly legal but perceived as entirely illegitimate. Authority can be accepted as legitimate while having no legal authority. Legitimacy means that the authority and rightness of the arrangements are widely accepted and trusted by people around the world. I added the term based on comments from Adiel, who made what I thought was a valid point that we wanted the outcome to be legitimate as well as accountable. --MM

7 9

FW: Blog post - ccTLD candidate selection
by Martin Boyle July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Dear colleagues, At the introduction this morning I mentioned the process led by the ccNSO to identify the four ccTLD members of the Coordinating Group. As background you might like to see the blog from the ccNSO chair that talks about the selection process. I promised to flag for the committee the report of the selection process: this is at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-iana-stewardship-selectees-14jul… I hope this helps you understand the internal ccTLD process that was put in place to identity committee participation. Best Martin From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca] Sent: 17 July 2014 19:03 To: muduma(a)nira.org.ng; Martin Boyle; Xiaodong Lee (xl(a)cnnic.cn) Keith NZ Subject: Blog post - ccTLD candidate selection Dear Colleagues, There appears to be a little friction (seriously misplaced in my opinion) in our community regarding the slate of candidates that we put forward. I thought you might be interested in my blog on the subject. Here's the link: http://cirablog.ca/2014/07/moving-forward-with-internet-governance-reforms/ And here is the text: If you read this blog regularly, or if you're even tangentially involved in the Internet governance world, you know that 2014 is like no other year in the history of Internet governance. Since the National Telecommunication and Information Administration's (NTIA) announcement of its intent to transition out of its IANA role, contract, the topic has dominated global Internet governance discourse. Apart from my day job as the head of the .CA registry, I'm the chair of the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the entity within the ICANN ecosystem that represents the interests of country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). As you can well imagine, I have been knee deep in the discussions around the transition of the accountability function the NTIA has played to this point for the IANA function. To oversee this process, ICANN has proposed a 27 member Coordinating Group. This group is to be comprised of representatives from IANA's customers, like ccTLDs and gTLDs, and other key stakeholders. Four of those 27 seats have been allocated by ICANN to ccTLDs, like .CA. It's important to note that ICANN asked the ccNSO to select four ccTLDs, not ccNSO members, to join the Coordinating Group. To facilitate this level of inclusiveness, the ccNSO went to great lengths to ensure that the call for applications was sent well beyond our community - through emails to every ccTLD in the IANA database, and by working with the Regional Organizations (ROs) to communicate with their members. Let me note that I believe the process to choose the community representatives is critical, and not only because we need to ensure the best possible representation on this important group. Trust in the process is a crucial component to ensuring acceptance of the outcomes. We need to get the process right if we are to be successful in our work. The ccNSO established a five member selection committee at the recent ICANN meeting in London and set out the criteria we felt that would enable the representatives to effectively represent the global ccTLD community. I was a member of that Selection Committee, along with four other selected individuals, including ccNSO members, an RO-appointed member, and one non-ccNSO member. The communications regarding the call for nominations to this committee included the broadest outreach possible. We worked in many languages, and sent emails to every ccTLD in the IANA database. By working with the ROs in our outreach, we were able to expand our reach to every corner of the globe. Every effort was made to make the communications as inclusive as possible, and I think the ccNSO Secretariat did an excellent job in this regard. We received about a dozen applications, and we were pleased that all of the nominees met the selection criteria and had the skill level and expertise to effectively represent the ccTLD community. We were faced with a very difficult task - balancing a wide variety of criteria to ensure effective representation of the diverse ccTLD community - 248 total worldwide. Among the considerations: * High-level skills and expertise: the importance of the Coordinating Group cannot be underestimated, and to make sure ccTLDs receive the best possible representation on that group, we had set minimum standards of skills and expertise for nominees. * Time: we also had to ensure that the nominees had sufficient time to devote to this process, and that they had the support of their host organization to do so. * Diversity of the ccTLD community: ccTLDs organize themselves in many different ways. Most (151, or 60 per cent) are members of the ccNSO. Those 151 represent 70 per cent of all registered ccTLD domain names. Others are members of their respective ROs, and some are members of both the ccNSO and an RO. Others are non-aligned, choosing to not organize with any group(s) whatsoever. All of these groupings were considered in order to ensure the broadest possible reach among the nominees. * Geographic diversity: ICANN has five defined regions: Africa (AF), Asia/Australia/Pacific (AP), Europe (EU), Latin America/Caribbean (LAC), and North America (NA). From the Selection Committee's report: "The Committee members agreed that building on and in addition to the quality of the nominees on the shortlist, the geographic region of the nominee should be considered, also in the context of the composition of the full coordination group. Based on this consideration the committee agreed that out of the four ccTLD members on the Coordination Group, no more than two should be from the same Geographic region." With only four seats on the Coordinating Group, it was clear from the outset that true geographic representation was not going to be possible. Furthermore, to ensure no one region would dominate the ccTLD representatives, the Selection Committee set a limit of no more than two nominees per region." * Registry size: ccTLDs range in size from a few thousand domain names under management to a few with tens of millions under management. * Governance structure: some ccTLDs, like .CA, are member-based and/or not-for-profits. Others are government departments, and some are privately held * Business models: while some ccTLDs are not-for-profits and generate income only to reinvest it in their host nation's Internet community, others are run as for-profit business. There are a number of ccTLDs that are subsidized by other entities, such as governments. Given the criteria we had to balance, there were no 'reserved' seats for any one group. The fact is four seats only allowed us to ensure some - not all - of the criteria were met. The discussion was difficult and the outcome was not unanimous. We did, however, reach consensus. In paring this list down to the final four, we balanced the selection criteria - balance being the keyword here. Geographic diversity is a good example of this - while there are five ICANN-defined geographic regions, we only had four seats on the Coordination Committee. Therefore, we knew from the outset not every objective would be fully realized. The goal was to balance all of the criteria and produce a slate of nominees that would best b representative of the key interests of global ccTLD managers and operators. I am confident we have done that. There were many good candidates among the applicants, and making a final decision meant a long and challenging discussion. In the end, we put forward four names for which we reach agreed consensus - but not unanimity: Martin Boyle, .UK, European Union region Keith Davidson, .NZ, Asia Pacific region Xiaodong Lee, .CN. Asia Pacific region Mary Uduma, .NG, Africa Region Did we meet the all of the criteria set out at the beginning of the process? No, but given the constraints we were facing - four seats to represent a community as large and diverse as ccTLDs - I have no hesitation in endorsing each of them for their ability to be representative of the global ccTLD community - both ccNSO members and non-members - effectively. Opinions in the ccTLD community can be as diverse as the ccTLDs themselves. But, at the end of the day, we are all ccTLD managers and operators who have a common interest in an excellent, high-performing and accountable IANA function. We made our best efforts to be as inclusive as possible. That spirit of inclusiveness will extend to the consultations and discussions in the broader ccTLD community as this process moves forward with specific transition proposals. We are at the high water mark of the current Internet governance ecosystem. The work we are doing today will affect the ways in which the Internet develops in the future. We need to get the process right, and we need to ensure that we are adhering to what are very important deadlines. With these four nominees, we are headed in the right direction.

1 0

Some of the reporting that is public today
by Elise Gerich July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Joe, Is this the type of information about what ³we² do today that you were recommending the CG enumerate? http://www.iana.org/performance Thanks, -- Elise

2 1

Scope Language
by Alice Jansen July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Dear Coordination Group Members, Please find attached the scope language. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

scope language
by Milton L Mueller July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA's role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN's policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process.

7 7

use this version of the draft charter
by Milton L Mueller July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

I left some words out in a section and forgot to date and version number the document, so here it is again. PLEASE USE THIS ONE. --- Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V 2.1 (July 16, 2014) The IANA transition coordination group (ICG) has one deliverable, a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the Internet community. The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA parameters fall into three categories: domain names, number resources, and other protocol parameters. While there is some overlap among these categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be based in the respective communities of interest. The coordination group has four main tasks: (i) Act as liaison to the three communities of interest (names, numbers, protocols) (ii) Assess the outputs of the three communities of interest for workability, compatibility and consensus (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition (iv) Information sharing and public communication Describing each in more detail: (i) Liaison Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status updates about the progress of his or her community in developing their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use registry) (ii) Assessment When the group receives output from the independent groups it will discuss and assess their workability, assess their compatibility and interoperability with the proposals of the other groups, and verify their levels of support in the respective communities. The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant communities) can address the issues. In assessing consensus, the coordination group will rely to some extent on its members to reflect to the rest of the group the support levels within the member's own community, but the group is also authorized to engage in independent assessments, such as public notice and comment periods. (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that they fulfil the intended scope, meet the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If not, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA. If changes are required to fix problems or achieve broader support, the ICG is authorized to make minor amendments in consultation with the affected communities of interest. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the liaison phase. (iv) Information sharing The ICG should serve as a central clearinghouse for public information about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat should maintain an independent website, under its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc.

5 4

ALAC links - on behalf of Jean-Jacques
by Alice Jansen July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Dear Coordination Group Members, Jean-Jacques has asked me share the following links with you: * At-Large Sub-Committee on the Selection of Members for the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Sub-Committee+on+the+S… * At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Ad-hoc+WG+on+the+Trans… Thank you, Best regards Alice

1 0

diff from my charter version to milton's
by Jari Arkko July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

1 0

Charter proposals
by Alissa Cooper July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Jari: https://alissacooper.com/files/iana/IANA%20CG%20charter%20-%20Jari.txt Milton: https://alissacooper.com/files/iana/IANA%20CG%20charter%20-%20Milton.txt

1 0

Addition to my introduction at the meeting
by Daniel Karrenberg July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Since I was the first to introduce myself I did not have a chance to recognise the trends in what people considered important to know. So here, for the purpose of full disclosure, are some additions withoiut wasting further airtime during our meeting: Selection process: http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/minutes-rssac-24jun14-en.pdf Travel funding: My employer, the RIPE NCC, is covering my expenses. I do not represent them here. Citizenship: DE Residence: NL, for some 20 years Self-image: Netizen with geographical emphasis on Europe and surrounding areas. Been around: Supported IANA since the 1980s, before ICANN. Daniel

4 3