- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Primitive notes on scheduling meetings
by Milton L Mueller July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

Colleagues: Refer to this message as the framework for our discussion of meetings. Also refer to Russ's "Timeline Discussion" document, as meetings need to be coordinated with our deadlines and expectations of milestones. 3 types of meetings: - Face to face (F2F) - Conference calls - Email List traffic Proposal: 1. Rely on list traffic remainder of July & August - charter and call for proposals should be finalized via email and list 2. Decision: Next f2f: Istanbul IGF or ICANN LA? or Both? F2F - Istanbul IGF Sept X - to publicize and promote work of the CG CG could make a presentation to a plenary session Or, F2F in ICANN meeting in LA Or, F2F in September (IGF) and October (ICANN) 3. Conf calls November, December, January, February 4. Receipt of proposals by beginning of March 2015? F2F in Dallas, TX near or during IETF 92, Mar 22-27 Or, F2F in APNIC 39 in Japan 24 Feb - 6 March 2015 5. Conf call in April 6. F2F in May 2015 at a location TBA 7. Conf calls in June, July

11 22

Re: [Internal-cg] [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
by Milton L Mueller July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

Seun, No, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a process and the coordination group, which has just been formed, is responsible for delibering the final proposal to NTIA. From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:00 AM To: Richard Hill Cc: Milton L Mueller; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Hello Richard, Perhaps the initial question we need to ask is who delivers the final proposal to NTIA. So i am basically asking, has NTIA tasked ICANN or ICG? From my understanding, NTIA has tasked ICANN and in return ICANN is engaging the internet community through the ICG. So ICANN will finally deliver to NTIA, the "read-only" proposal submitted to her by ICG. If you agree with that understanding then, i hope you will agree that your suggested edit does not fall in line Cheers! On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>> wrote: Dear Milton, Unless I am missing something, this group is responding to a request from NTIA. NTIA refers to the "global multi-stakeholder community", so I don't see how the coordination group's charter can use a different term. And what is the "global Internet community"? Is there a definition of that? Who is included? You state: "The IANA functions are being transferred to some set of actors in the Internet community". Doesn't that prejudge the outcome (in particular by ruling out the creation of a new body)? Or is that one of the preconditions set by NTIA? And a meta-question: how will disagreements regarding the group's charter be resolved? By the group itself? Or by the "global multi-stakeholder community", which is presumably what NTIA had in mind? Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>] > Sent: mercredi, 23. juillet 2014 15:12 > To: rhill(a)hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal > Subject: RE: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > > > I would oppose most of the proposed changes in the preamble, > where we define the deliverable of the group. > The changes in the first sentence are mere word-smithing and a > matter of style and I prefer to directness of the original version. > All but one of the other proposed changes in the first paragraph > seem ill-advised to me. The IANA functions are being transferred > to some set of actors in the Internet community; our job is to > ensure that the proposal makes those actors accountable to the > global MS community (whatever that is) but not to transfer them > to the global MS comm as such. Thus, I prefer "Internet > community" to "global MS community." Further, "global MS > community" is a mouthful and a bit of jargon to an ordinary > person; let's just say what we mean. > > I do agree that the final proposal we submit should include > dissenting views. But given that our job is to assist in and > compile an executable proposal it makes no sense to include any > and all proposals that were either not workable nor not supported. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ianatransition-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Hill Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:30 AM To: Ianaxfer@Elists. Isoc. Org; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; ICANN Internal Cc: Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu Subject: [ianatransition] Comments on Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Please find attached my comments on the Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and some proposed revisions. Best, Richard Hill _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !

2 1

Dropbox invitations are sent out
by Patrik Fältström July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

All of you that are members of the CG _except_ Kuo Wei-Wu, Elise Gerich and ICANN related support staff should have got your invitations. I have put a few documents in the folder so that you can see that the system works. Reason for not adding everyone immediately is that I have got conflicting lists with participants and will when I get better data send a new mail to the this list that will ask for clarification on: 1. Who is to be on this mailing list, who should have posting rights, and who will only have read access via web (the email archive) 2. Who is to get read/write access to the documents, and who will only have read access via web We already know that everyone should have read access to everything, so that is easy, but the question is where to draw the line so that the work will be manageable. Patrik

5 9

NTIA Speech on IANA Transition
by Drazek, Keith July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

All, Yesterday, NTIA’s Larry Strickling gave a speech in Washington, DC on the IANA transition. The work of the ICG was referenced. I have excerpted the relevant text below (with the full text at the bottom). Of particular note should be the last paragraph where, for the first time that I’m aware, NTIA went on record saying, “…the accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place.” The entire speech is worth reading. “Since our announcement, ICANN – working with other Internet organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Society, and the Regional Internet Registries – has laid out a process for developing the plan based on consultations with stakeholders, which began in Singapore in March. Acting as a facilitator, ICANN earlier this month announced the formation of a coordination group of around 30 individuals representing 13 different Internet communities that will help develop a transition proposal. The group held its first meeting last week in London. The group appears to be off to a good start. It has developed a proposed charter for comment that affirms that it “will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.” I am confident that by working out these important issues, this process will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place.” Regards, Keith BEGIN FULL TEXT: July 22, 2014 Keynote Address by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information “Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process” American Enterprise Institute Washington, D.C. July 22, 2014 --As Prepared for Delivery-- I want to thank the American Enterprise Institute, and in particular, Jeff Eisenach and Shane Tews, for inviting me to address this group today on the important issue of Internet governance. In particular, I want to focus on what has been happening in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) announcement<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> in March that we intend to transition our stewardship role with respect to the Internet domain name system (DNS). At the outset, I want to put your minds at ease. Contrary to some initial concerns that we were giving away the Internet, the response from the global Internet community has been overwhelmingly supportive. The community has organized a multistakeholder process to determine what will happen once the United States government steps out of its current limited role. The discussions to date demonstrate that the community is taking this transition very seriously and is determined to develop a transition plan that will ensure that the Internet DNS continues to support a growing and innovative Internet. However, before I get into the details, let me start by setting the stage. What is NTIA’s role today with respect to the domain name system? And what is changing? This transition is the last step in a process that started 16 years ago when the U.S. government committed to allowing the private sector to take leadership for domain name system management. In 1998, the Department of Commerce designated<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/6_5_98dns.pdf> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform what are known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or IANA functions. These include assigning Internet protocol, or “IP,” numbers to regional registries who then assign them to Internet service providers. Another function is the maintenance and updating of the root zone file for top-level domain names—the so-called address book for the Internet that is necessary for the routing of Internet communications. In March, we asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by my agency in the coordination of the domain name system. Our role is largely procedural in that NTIA verifies that ICANN followed its policies and procedures in processing domain name change requests. Then we pass that request on to Verisign, which implements those changes in the root zone file. We have no operational role and we do not initiate any changes to the root zone file, to the assignment of IP numbers, or the allocation of Internet numbering resources. In making our announcement, we communicated a number of conditions that must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. This announcement does not change anything about how the domain name system operates today. Before any transition takes place, the businesses, civil society and technical experts of the global Internet community must present a consensus plan that ensures the uninterrupted and stable functioning of the Internet and its present openness. We have not set a deadline for this action. While the current contract<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_an…> with ICANN expires in September 2015, we have repeatedly noted that we can extend the contract for up to four years if the Internet community needs more time to develop a proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. In the meantime, our current role will not change. Since our announcement, ICANN – working with other Internet organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Society, and the Regional Internet Registries – has laid out a process for developing the plan based on consultations with stakeholders, which began in Singapore in March. Acting as a facilitator, ICANN earlier this month announced the formation of a coordination group of around 30 individuals representing 13 different Internet communities that will help develop a transition proposal. The group held its first meeting last week in London. The group appears to be off to a good start. It has developed a proposed charter for comment that affirms that it “will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.” I am confident that by working out these important issues, this process will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place. We will monitor the progress of both of these work efforts closely and carefully. We remain steadfast in our commitment to preserve and protect the vibrant, free-flowing Internet. We will ensure that the plan submitted to us from the community satisfies our conditions and has been stress-tested to ensure that it can deal with whatever contingencies arise in the future. As anyone paying attention to Internet governance issues knows, our announcement created a lot of discussion and a little bit of controversy. But overall, the international community has applauded the move as it demonstrates in a concrete way the commitment of the United States to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. But here in the United States, some have argued, if it is not broke, do not fix it. However, let me explain why this is the right move at the right time. First, as ICANN has performed the IANA functions over the years, it has matured as an organization and has taken important steps to improve its accountability and transparency as well as its technical competence. Second, as witnessed so strongly in the past several months, international support has continued to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. And as a result, many of the Internet’s key stakeholders, including Internet firms like Google; communications providers like AT&T and Cisco; and civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch and Public Knowledge support this transition as the right course, at the right time. Now I understand that these issues are complex and that any change, even one as planned and as evolutionary as this one, raises questions that need to be answered. We welcome a full and open debate on the transition but at the same time, we should base that discussion on facts, not on myths or ideologies. For example, there is a persistent notion that the United States currently controls the Internet. That is simply not true. The Internet has been, and will continue to be, a decentralized network of networks that relies on cooperation and coordination of many stakeholders for its efficient function. It works today, and it will work after the transition, because the stakeholders are committed to making it work, not because of the IANA functions contract between the United States and ICANN. Some critics have argued that NTIA is proposing to give away United States “property” as if we were proposing that the United States give Alaska back to Russia. We do not own the domain name system and we cannot give away what we do not own. Instead, our contract with ICANN simply designates it to perform the IANA functions. Neither ICANN nor the United States pays anything to each other under this contract. Now that ICANN has demonstrated its ability to perform these functions with the support of the community, there is no longer a need for the United States to designate ICANN to perform these functions and we are not obligated to maintain a contract when it is no longer needed. Another misconception about this transition is that our announcement has emboldened authoritarian governments like Russia to attempt to exert greater influence over Internet policy. To the contrary, our announcement arguably has had the effect of reducing Russia’s influence in the rest of the world for greater government control over the Internet. It is a historical fact that Russia has long argued for more governmental control of the Internet. This is nothing new. It is simply not the case that Russia started to argue for greater governmental control only after our announcement. It has consistently done so for years. What is new is that other countries are rejecting Russia’s arguments and demonstrating support for the multistakeholder model. This was on full display in April when businesses, public interest groups, technical experts and governments met in Brazil for the NetMundial conference on Internet governance. The conference gave all stakeholders the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the future of Internet governance. Those parties came together in two days and agreed that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes that ensure “meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.” Now as reported in the press, Russia spoke out against the NetMundial consensus. What was not as fully reported was the fact that only one other government, Cuba, joined it in open opposition to the outcomes statement endorsed by the NetMundial participants. We firmly believe that our announcement will help prevent any government or group of governments to take over the domain name system. Our continued stewardship of the IANA functions has been a source of friction and used as an excuse by Russia and others to push for organizations like the International Telecommunication Union to take over the IANA functions. Our announcement takes that argument off the table, and affirms the role of the global Internet community, which is committed to a truly inclusive multistakeholder process for Internet governance. Leading human rights groups agree. In a letter to Congress earlier this year, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and others said that the transition “could help thwart government overreach in Internet governance, which would have devastating implications for human rights worldwide.” Another misconception about our announcement is that some countries have used it as an excuse to clamp down on Internet access in their own countries. Nothing about our role with the IANA functions can prevent countries from censoring and restricting access to the Internet within their own borders. Efforts by Russia and others to limit access within their own country to information online and offline began long before our announcement. As the Freedom House noted in its 2013 Internet Freedom report, “Blocking access to information on entire websites, IP addresses, and particular webpages has become the most common means in Russia to restrict user activity on the Internet.” While countries like Russia might want to export this approach worldwide, the Internet’s decentralized and cooperative nature would never allow it to happen. Harvard Law Professor Jonathan Zittrain, an expert in the intersection of policy and technology, summed it up best in the New Republic earlier this year. He wrote, “Any attempt to impose broad-based censorship through domain name assignments would be met with stiff resistance by the operators of domain name registries, and ultimately by the Internet Service Providers who choose to consult those registries for information about what destination each name represents.” Such a move would be strongly resisted by the United States government as well. Because while we seek to transition out of our limited, largely clerical, role with the IANA functions, we are not walking away from ICANN or exiting from the debate over Internet governance. We will continue to be vocal and active players in all Internet governance forums including ICANN. Like other governments, the United States is active in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). We have been and will continue to be vigorous advocates within the GAC for policies that promote the openness and freedom of the Internet. As one group of stakeholders in the ICANN process, governments have unique power to speak to the public interest when they speak as one based on consensus positions. I want to emphasize this point. The Internet does not respect national boundaries. No one country, no two countries, no ten countries can claim to speak on behalf of the public interest. This fact is reflected in the ICANN bylaws in which governments can provide advice on public policy matters to the board. However, such advice only has true power when it is presented as the consensus advice of governments; in other words, when it reflects a global view and not just the parochial view of a handful of governments. In that context, the idea that governments could enhance their influence within ICANN by changing its rules to allow for a majority vote on policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the policymaking process at ICANN as well as a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word consensus. The United States would strongly oppose any such move and indeed, any effort by governments to eliminate the requirement of consensus will simply weaken the role of governments within ICANN. Ultimately, ICANN’s multistakeholder process makes it impossible for any one group to dominate the discussions or impose its will. That is the beauty of the multistakeholder process and why it has enabled the Internet to grow and flourish. Domestically, there has been strong support for the multistakeholder approach. Both chambers of Congress voted unanimously in 2012 to “preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.” Now I understand that some lawmakers have concerns about the IANA transition and its potential impact on Internet freedom and openness. I respect those opinions but strongly believe Congressional efforts aimed at delaying this transition would send the wrong message to the rest of the world about our commitment to the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. The unified message has traditionally been a bulwark against regulatory efforts by foreign authoritarian regimes. It is important that we continue echoing that message and do everything we can to support the multistakeholder approach as the best model for promoting a free and open Internet across the globe. The multistakeholder model allows anyone the opportunity to participate and be heard. That includes all of you in this room today. So I urge all of you to show your support for the transition process by participating in it. We have made it crystal clear that the plan should be developed in an open and transparent manner. Now, there will be coordination out of necessity, and I referred earlier to the coordination group that will do just that. But anyone can provide input into the process. I encourage you to do so. Second, I urge you to continue to demonstrate your support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. As with any consensus-based organization, one will not always be able to get everything one wants. But that is a hallmark of the process. It is not a sign of failure of the process. And finally, continue to work with all of the stakeholders at ICANN to improve the accountability and transparency of the organization. I have made that commitment by personally participating in the two prior Accountability and Transparency Review teams, and I encourage all of you to contribute to the accountability review as it gets organized this summer. Thank you for listening. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 1

Rép: Co-chairs revised draft 2.0
by jjs July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

Hello, the statement that "a new consensus has been reached" is not acceptable to the representatives of the ALAC, who have agreed neither to a sudden reversal of the decision taken in London (3 co-Chairs), nor to the subsequent nomination of one candidate. This has been referred to the ALAC, whose consolidated position will be made known shortly. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> a écrit : >Colleagues: > >As a result of the consultation process, a new consensus has emerged: > >There is now support for a Chair and Alternate. I have taken the >liberty off accommodating a minority request for co-chairs by allowing >the Chair to have the Alternate play a supporting role to share the work >as they see fit between themselves, but the Chair is the primary >decision-maker between the two. > >I have adapted the previous document to reflect that. Attached is a red >line version, below is a clean text. > >In the process of comment Alissa Cooper has been the only candidate for >Chair spontaneously suggested. There is a request of the existing >volunteers or any new volunteers to clarify their position related to >what role they are interested in; please note the timeline below. > >One question as to process. Online, the only humming comes from the air >conditioning; therefore the process of achieving consensus is the rough >consensus among those who post an opinion. To date the above reflects >the consensus comments. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >*_Role Of The Chair-Alternate (Draft v 1.0)_* > >*Introduction* > >As a result of the consultation since the first meeting of the IANA >Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) a new consensus has >emerged among those that have commented.There will be one Chair and an >Alternate.. A call for volunteers remains open among committee members >for Chair and Alternate. It continues to be agreed that the roles of the >Chair/Alternate, supported by the secretariat, would be mostly related >to the organization and running of the coordination group – keeping the >trains running on time was a description often used by analogy.The >ability of Chair/Alternate to execute the needed functions and work >collaboratively was seen as essential to the role.It was also suggested >by some that considerations of diversity would be desirable in the >choice of officers. Finally it was suggested that a more precise resume >of the roles would be useful, which is the purpose of this draft. > >*Comment and Selection Process* > >This Draft, Chair-Alternate (draft 1.0) has incorporated the requested >changes from commentators, with one compromise – there was a minority >request for more than one chair to share the work.I have proposed that >the Chair and Alternate can self-organize the work between >themselves.This maintains one clear Chair, while allowing for the >Alternate to support the chair as well. > >The final deadline for comments and additional volunteers by 2:00PM CET >Thursday July 24th to the list under the subject “Role of the >Chair-Alternate draft v 1.0 for comment and volunteers”.The Role of the >Chair-Alternate document and list of volunteers will be posted on

1 0

Our problem is solved
by Milton L Mueller July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

Our mission statement has been written for us http://vevo.ly/zTDyrD

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Co-chair roles document for comment
by Joseph Alhadeff July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

I would ask members to use the time frames requested to both comment on numbers as well as on the description of thr role. I would also ask that if we go with one chair we have some form of backup if the one chair can not make a meeting. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net] Received: Monday, 21 Jul 2014, 12:08PM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma(a)yahoo.com] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Co-chair roles document for comment On 21.07.14 0:45 , Mary Uduma wrote: > ... > In my opinion, I would ask the ICG to rethink on the issue of > co-chairs. I think we need only a Chairperson to fast-rack our work. It > is always very challenging to row the boat smoothly when there are > several captains. Moreover, ICG is not a permanent Group. > > We should cut down on bureaucracies of selecting three co-chairs with > all the attendant "balancing" that must be considered in the process. > > Looking back at 17-18 July meeting, you will agree with me that it was > smooth, focused and well steered. > > I will urge us to select a capable chair who can always call for > volunteer leads on theme(s) and other adhoc task(s}. > ... I think Mary has spoken very wise words here. It is a pity that we have been too far down a rat-hole to hear her when she said this during the meeting. Maybe we can take the chance to heed her advice now. I, for one, completely agree with her. I also believe Alissa did an outstanding job preparing and running the meeting. We should we look further? Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2

Co-chair roles document for comment
by joseph alhadeff July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

Please find the proposed draft below and attached as a word document for easier comment. *_Role Of The Co-Chairs (Draft v 1.0)_* *Introduction* At the first meeting of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) it was agreed that there would be three co-chairs. A call for volunteers was opened among committee members. It was further agreed that the roles of the co-chairs, supported by the secretariat, would be mostly related to the organization and running of the coordination group – keeping the trains running on time was a description often used by analogy.The number of co-chairs was clarified not to have any necessary linkage to the three main “operational communities”; co-chairs were to be chosen on their own merits. The ability of co-chairs to execute the needed functions and work collaboratively was seen as essential to the role.It was also suggested by some that considerations of diversity would be desirable in the choice of the chairs. Finally it was suggested that a more precise resume of the roles would be useful, which is the purpose of this draft. *Comment and Selection Process* Please provide comments to this draft of the co-chair role by COB on Tuesday July 22^nd by posting to the list with the subject line “Role of the Co-chair draft v1.0 for comment”.A final draft version will be posted on the list on Wednesday morning July 23th with a final deadline for comments and additional volunteers by COB on Wednesday July 23th to the list under the subject “Role of the Co-chair draft v 2.0 for comment and volunteers”.The Role of the Co-chair (final) document and list of volunteers will be posted on Thursday.ICG members must make their preferences for co-chairs known one week from that date (COB July 31).If ICG members are in agreement (please suggest alternative procedures to the list, if not), preferences can be manifested by sending a post to the list with your three preferred candidates. The three with the highest number of endorsements will become the co-chairs. We would ask that all co-chair volunteers be sure to have submitted their bios to the secretariat as requested so that they are available for review.Any volunteer wishing to provide further information may do so by e-mail to the list.To date, there have been 5 volunteers: Russ Housley (IAB) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Partrik Faltstrom (SSAC) Keith Drazek (GTLd Registries) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) *Co-chair Role Processes and Responsibilities:* Operational Processes ·There will be three co-chairs of equal footing (selected from volunteers) that will serve for the duration of this exercise. ·The ICG will reserve the right to change the number of the co-chairs, their role or who will serve as co-chairs, as appropriate, through its established operating procedure of rough consensus. ·If for any reason a co-chair is no longer able or willing to serve in that capacity, they will inform the secretariat who will communicate this to the ICG and request that it seek volunteers to fill the vacancy or otherwise determine to proceed with the existing number of co-chairs. ·Co-chairs are explicitly able to participate in ICG discussions on their own or their constituency’s behalf and are just requested to take appropriate precaution that there is no confusion related to their role in such participation. ·The operational modalities of the co-chairs, who is undertaking what function, moderating the conversation for example, maintaining the que…, is left to their self-organization.It was the view of the ICG that we did not wish to micro-manage the co-chair operations, but ICG obviously reserves the right to suggest or make changes pursuant to rough consensus. Responsibilities: ·The role of the co-chairs are to assure that meetings and conference calls are properly scheduled, planned, prepared, organized and efficiently conducted including: ofinalizing this version of the timeline and other work in process oplanning for appropriate outreach and consultation otimely developing agendas in appropriate consultation with ICG, oorganizing volunteers (for themes, discussion topics and other needed functions) omoderating discussion and other elements of meeting function ooverseeing minutes and summaries being taken, reviewed and circulated in a timely fashion supported by the secretariat as well as the drafting, circulation and publication of other needed papers and documents, and oassuring that action items are captured, completed or otherwise followed up; including between calls and meetings. ·Co-chairs will be appropriately supported by the Secretariat in the executing these functions. ·Co-chairs are not meant to have independent decision-making in substantive issues of the ICG on behalf of the group, but are rather the coordinators of the process elements related to the calls, meetings and related functions.Decisions must remain inclusive and collaborative. There was discussion, however, that where rough consensus does not emerge organically or cannot be recognized, the co-chairs lead the ICG in a process to finalize rough consensus. ·There is no current spokesperson or press liaison role associated to the co-chairs, but the ICG may revisit that function as needed and subject to whatever conditions (only speak from agreed points, etc) it feels appropriate. ·Co-chairs should also recognize that by virtue of their title they are clothed with apparent authority and should make clear across all situations what their role and representative capacity is (on behalf of themselves, their consistency…) ·Co-chairs need to be mindful of and support the needs of transparency of this process in the planning, organization, conduct and reporting back of calls and meetings as well as the drafting of papers and other supporting documents

13 15

Minutes from Day 1 of first meeting
by Samantha Dickinson July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

Hello all I sent through an email just before departing London on Sunday, but because I had changed my email address, it got stuck in moderator limbo. To recap from that email, as well as some additional content... The minutes are longer than I originally anticipated. The reason for the length is that, and I hope you don't mind me making this presumption, it seemed that as a first meeting, where the group was setting up its work for the coming year, it was important to document the discussion in some depth so that observers could better understand how the ICG reached its decisions. I also thought that detail may assist some of you, as representatives of your respective communities, prepare summaries or reports back to your communities, if any of you are doing that. The transcripts are available, of course, but I've tried to group discussions within agenda items by topic rather than order of speaker, so there is a more logical presentation of how the discussion developed. There may not be a need for such detailed minutes for upcoming meetings. I have attached the minutes as Word documents. If this is a problematic format for any of you, please let me know. In terms of action items, I wasn't sure what format you used, so have used a generic "Action item ICG-[number]" format that could perhaps be used for both onsite and teleconference action items by just incrementing the number at the end. If you prefer a different format, please let me know and I'll adjust the minutes accordingly. I have also attached a table that will be an annex to the minutes of this first meeting. It currently contains a structured representation of the information presented by ICG members in the "Introductions" section of Day 1. I will add the details of the members who arrived on Day 2 shortly. I will endeavour to get Day 2 minutes out to you all by the end of Wednesday. I think I should be able to make them a bit shorter than the Day 1 minutes, however, since some of the contents of the discussions held on Day 2 were similar to that held on Day 1. Regards -- Samantha Dickinson Internet governance consultant & writer Lingua Synaptica Web: http://linguasynaptica.com Twitter: @sgdickinson

1 0

Fwd: draft proposal for a public statement
by Drazek, Keith July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

Final version as formatted for posting by ICANN is attached. Thanks all! Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove(a)icann.org<mailto:jim.trengrove@icann.org>> Date: July 18, 2014, 6:49:06 PM GMT+01:00 To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] draft proposal for a public statement Hi Keith - Just replying to you with the statement (see attached) as it will appear on the ICANN site. I¹ve added three (3) hyperlinks with the understanding that the link for the "minutes and recordings² will not be immediately active at the time that this is posted but will activate ASAP. I also took the liberty of adding today¹s date. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best Jim Trengrove Senior Director of Communications Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +1 202 297 8950 On 7/18/14, 6:22 PM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Final version attached and below. Statement from the First Meeting of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) The ICG met for the first time on 17-18 July, 2014 in London, United Kingdom. In this first meeting, the ICG developed a proposed charter and scope for its future work in support of the community's development of a proposal on the IANA functions stewardship transition. It also conducted an initial discussion of a draft timeline for development of the transition proposal and worked on its internal organization, communication needs and participation processes. Most members of the ICG were on site while others connected remotely. The meeting was also streamed live to observers in seven languages. To facilitate ongoing community efforts, the ICG is coordinating the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The group has one deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recommending a transition plan of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the Internet community, consistent with the key principles outlined in the NTIA March 14 announcement. The ICG will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that the final recommendation supports the security and stability of the IANA functions. Creation of the ICG was initiated and facilitated by ICANN, and the membership of the ICG has been defined by the Internet communities participating in it, as enumerated at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en In March 2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. Therefore, the Internet community has launched a bottom-up, multistakeholder effort to develop and deliver a proposal to enable this transition and to meet the criteria set out by the NTIA. Substantial efforts are already underway in the respective impacted communities, included but not limited to, for names in ICANN and country-code communities, for numbers in the RIR community, and for protocol parameters in the IETF. The ICG meeting minutes and recordings will be available at (URL). The draft charter is now available for community review and input at (URL). In the coming days and weeks, the ICG will continue its dialogue with Internet communities. We encourage all interested parties to engage early and often in the community discussions now underway. Formal ICG communication channels are currently under development and will be communicated as soon as available. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 12:52 PM To: <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] draft proposal for a public statement New text: Statement from the First Meeting of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) The ICG met for the first time on 17-18 July, 2014 in London, United Kingdom. In this first meeting, the ICG developed a proposed charter and scope for its future work in support of the community's development of a proposal on the IANA functions stewardship transition. It also discussed a draft timeline for development of the transition proposal and worked on its internal organization, communication needs and participation processes. Most members of the ICG were on site while others connected remotely. The meeting was also streamed live to observers in seven different languages. To facilitate ongoing community efforts, the IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) was established to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The group has one deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recommending a transition plan of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the Internet community, consistent with the key principles outlined in the NTIA March 14 announcement. The ICG will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that the final recommendation supports the security and stability of the IANA functions. Creation of the ICG was initiated and facilitated by ICANN, and the membership of the ICG has been defined by the Internet communities participating in it, as enumerated at (insert link). In March 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. As a part of this transition, the Internet community has launched a bottom-up, multistakeholder effort to develop and deliver a proposal to enable this transition and to meet the criteria set out by the NTIA. Substantial efforts are already underway in the respective impacted communities, included but not limited to, for names in ICANN and country-code communities, for numbers in the RIR community, and for protocol parameters in the IETF. The ICG meeting minutes and recordings will be available at (URL). The draft charter and a preliminary proposed timeline are now available for community review and input at (URL) and (URL). In the coming days and weeks, the ICG will continue its dialogue with Internet communities. We encourage all interested parties to engage early and often in the community discussions now underway. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 12:05 PM To: Drazek, Keith; <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] draft proposal for a public statement Keith, that looks fine. I would be a little bit more explicit about next steps if we can be. Daniel On 18.07.14 17:52 , Drazek, Keith wrote: Thanks Jari, I've taken your first cut and made some edits. Here's the new suggested text we can discuss in the meeting shortly: In March 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. As a part of this transition, the Internet community has launched a bottom-up, multistakeholder effort to develop and deliver a proposal to enable this transition and to meet the criteria set out by the NTIA. Substantial efforts are already underway in the respective impacted communities, for instance for names in ICANN and country-code communities, for numbers in the RIR community, and for protocol parameters in the IETF. To facilitate these community efforts, the IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has been established to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The group has one deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recommending a detailed transition plan of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the Internet community, consistent with the 4 key principles outlined in the NTIA March 14 announcement. The ICG will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that the final recommendation supports the security and stability of the IANA functions. Creation of the ICG was initiated and facilitated by ICANN, and the membership of the ICG has been defined by the Internet communities participating in it, namely (ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, gTLD, ICC/BASIS, IAB, IETF, ISOC, NRO, RSSAC, SSAC). The ICG met for the first time on 17-18 July, 2014 in London, UK. Most members of the ICG were on site while others connected remotely. The meeting was also streamed live to all interested observers in six different languages. In this first meeting, the ICG completed a proposed charter and scope for its future work, discussed a proposed timeline for the transition proposal and communication needs, and worked on the ICG's internal organisation and participation processes The meeting minutes and recordings are available at (URL) and draft charter and timeline are at (URL) and (URL). In the coming days and weeks the ICG will be starting its dialogue with Internet communities. We encourage all interested parties to engage early and often in the bottom-up multi-stakeholder discussions now underway. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:17 AM To: <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Internal-cg] draft proposal for a public statement I wrote this. Feel free to use, but only if you think we need one, buyer beware about defects in the merchandise, etc. Jari --- In March 2014, the NTIA announced its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. As a part of this transition, the Internet community has launched efforts to derive a proposal to do this and meet the criteria set out by the NTIA. A large part of these efforts are ongoing in the respective communities, for instance for names in ICANN and country-code communities, for numbers in the RIR community, and for protocol parameters in the IETF. In addition, The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has been set up with a mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The group 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 will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions. The membership of the ICG has been defined by the Internet communities participating in it, namely (ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, gTLD, ICC/BASIS, IAB, IETF, ISOC, NRO, RSSAC, SSAC) and the group's creation was facilitated by ICANN. The ICG has met for the first time on 17-18 July in London, UK. The members of the ICG were on while others connected remotely. The meeting was also streamed live to all interested observers in six different languages. In its first meeting, the ICG completed a proposed charter and scope for itself, talked about a timeline for the transition and communication needs, and worked on the ICG's internal organisation and participation. The meeting minutes and recordings are available at (URL) and draft charter and timeline are at (URL) and (URL). In the coming days and weeks the ICG will be starting its dialogue with Internet communities. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

3 2