- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability
by Milton L Mueller Oct. 7, 2014

Oct. 7, 2014

There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong. Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full: "The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work." This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process. b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability. Furthermore, Wolf-Ulrich has raised an important issue, namely that the ICANN enhanced accountability process almost certainly will take longer than our transition process needs to take. So how do we coordinate with a process that is probably on a more extended time frame than ours? On the other hand, people involved in the other process will likely oppose going forward with the transition unless they are satisfied that ICANN has either executed or is completely committed to sufficient reforms related to accountability. Worse, you all need to understand is that our final proposal will not just go to the NTIA, it will become meat for US Congressional committees to pick over, and that Congressional scrutiny will be more concerned ICANN accountability than with the IANA transition per se. Or, to put it differently, if the accountability elements of our final proposal are not deemed strong enough to let ICANN off the hook, and if the other ICANN accountability process is not finished yet, we can expect strong opposition to execution of our approved transition plan. Because of its role, the ICG will be right in the middle of the two processes, and this will probably prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of our task. We will need to discuss this a lot more in LA. With that in mind here is a proposed redraft of Q18 ---- 18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability? The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. ----- I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them.

6 7

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
by Joe Alhadeff Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

While I generally agree that we do not need to provide definitions as a matter of course we do have to avoid confusion in our use of terms. Is there a belief that people would be unclear as to what we mean by IANA functions? There have been issues of functions that are specified in the contract or not. While our RFP does reference similar terms I am not sure that they are defined. That might be the role of an FAQ... ----- Original Message ----- From: paf(a)frobbit.se To: kuoweiwu(a)gmail.com Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 12:46:52 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. On 1 okt 2014, at 06:23, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Personally, I do not think we need to add definitions. It adds to the confusion. My apologies for not being more clear... Reason for this is that we already have an agreed to text in the RFP we have submitted. As Milton said on the call, we should have simple answers to simple repeated questions. Regarding "what is IANA", maybe we should just remove the question? Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

7 18

Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ - deadline for comments
by Elise Gerich Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

Dear Manal, To be consistent with the rest of the document, question #7 should read: ³Does the IANA functions operator carry out functions other than names, number & protocol identifiers?² Regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> Cc: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ - deadline for comments > - modified question 7 to read "Does IANA carry out functions other than > names, number & protocol identifiers?" and would appreciate help in > listing IANA functions not under NTIA contact

2 1

Call for participation in CWG
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

The cross-community working group developing a stewardship transition proposal for naming related functions had a conference call today. On that call I agreed to put a request out to all of you to please spread the word within your communities (particularly those outside of ICANN) about the call for participation in that group. An explanation of how to join the group is here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en Note that the term “participants” is now being used rather than “observers.” The group’s charter is here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14…. People who are interested in joining the group can contact Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org) Please inform your communities. The CWG’s next meeting will be a face-to-face meeting at ICANN 51 on Monday, 13 October, 12:15 to 13:45 PDT. Thanks, Alissa

1 0

Versions and naming of documents
by Patrik Fältström Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

All, I see in Dropbox that we have for many documents a good naming structure for the documents themselves, but when we later finally agree on a document, we seem to not be clear enough what version of the document is really the final. This is something ultimately our secretarial will take care of on our web site where "final" versions of the documents should be available, but until then, I encourage people to name documents with -FINAL in the name. Such as: topicarea-FINAL.doc topicarea-FINAL.pdf Patrik

4 5

Fwd: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

I wanted to share the email exchange below with the ICG. Mohamed, Patrick and I were under the impression that the email we received from Jonathan and Byron was private correspondence, and I responded privately on behalf of the three of us accordingly, but it seems that the original message has been made public <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+to+ICG+--+24+S…> so we wanted to make sure the ICG was aware of the full exchange. I will follow up with Jonathan and Byron so that we make sure to have clarity in the future about when communications are intended for the full ICG and when not. Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > Subject: Re: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG > Date: September 25, 2014 at 10:17:35 AM PDT > To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, <mbashir(a)mbash.net>, 'Patrik Falstrom -' <paf(a)frobbit.se> > Cc: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, 'Milton Mueller -' <mueller(a)syr.edu>, 'James Bladel -' <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Keith Drazek -' <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, 'Jon Nevett -' <jon(a)donuts.co>, <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com>, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle(a)nominet.org.uk>, "'Xiaodong Lee:'" <xl(a)cnnic.cn>, <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> > > Jonathan, Byron, > > Thank you for the update. I realize that there have been extensive efforts put into developing a somewhat novel process on short order for the purposes of developing a transition proposal, and I very much appreciate the effort that you and your colleagues in the other constituencies have put into this. > > Regarding the timeline, we did designate January 15 (and all of the other milestones) as a “target” so as to acknowledge the potential need for some wiggle room on either side to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may arise in the various communities. With that said, the January 15 target was deliberately chosen with the rest of the consultation and coordination steps in mind, and with a very strong emphasis on completion of the transition by September 30, 2015. As I noted at the first ICG meeting, I think the political likelihood of getting a second chance to transition after that date are extremely slim, and the ICG as a whole seems quite motivated to have the transition completed next year. > > As such, while small delays can probably accommodated, delays on the order of one month or more (e.g., from mid-January to mid-February) will present difficulties for the rest of the coordination process that the ICG has committed to, and could put a timely completion of the full transition at risk. I realize that face-to-face meetings have been a key mode of doing business in the past, but I would urge you to consider alternative methods for completing a transition proposal for names that would not require postponement until ICANN 52 if at all possible. If the processes in the operational communities get too far out of sync, the ICG may need to proceed with its coordination with only a subset of proposals to assemble and finalize. That would be far from an ideal situation. > > In any event, I’m very glad to hear that the CWG is getting started. Feel free to send RFP questions if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > On 9/24/14, 7:00 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > > Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed, > > We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014. > > We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community. > > While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes. > > Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation. > > The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. > > Sincerely, > > > Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland > Co-Chairs > Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal

3 5

Links to documents & archives
by Alice Jansen Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information - Below you will find links to call #5 archives (see - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-archives-2014-07-31-en) Agenda - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/agenda-icg-01oct14-en.pdf Chat transcript - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-01oct14-en.… Recording EN - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-en.mp3 Recording FR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-fr.mp3 Recording ES - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-es.mp3 Recording RU - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-ru.mp3 Recording PT - Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Portuguese interpreters Team was unable to join the ICG call #5 today. We have checked with our conferencing services - no observer joined the PT line. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Rest assured that a PT transcript will be provided. Recording ZH - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-zh.mp3 Recording AR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-01oct14-ar.mp3 Transcripts of the audio recordings will be posted as soon as available. The meeting request announcement was published on 29 September - see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-29-en and is referenced on your ICG activities page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en Your ICANN 51 meeting schedule can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-losangeles51-schedule-01oct… and is posted on the ICG activities page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en The links to icgproposal(a)icann.org<mailto:icgproposal@icann.org> public archives - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icg-proposal/ - and to icg-meetingrequest(a)icann.org<applewebdata://A2F39726-6303-4829-AA86-BC16C136E40E/icg-meetingrequest@icann.org> public archives - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icg-meetingrequest/- are now available on the ICG activities page at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en Best regards Alice

2 1

Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at The Media Institute ..
by Manal Ismail Oct. 1, 2014

Oct. 1, 2014

Thought this may be of interest to the group .. http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocum ent&orgId=102898&topicId=235950016&docId=l:2213343597&isRss=true&Em=4&md 5=&sendDate=20140930 Kind Regards --Manal

1 0

Minutes of 6 and 17 September ICG meetings
by Samantha Dickinson Oct. 1, 2014

Oct. 1, 2014

I have placed the drafts of the September face-to-face meeting and teleconference minutes on Dropbox in the minutes folder: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/2swcl5wjsyx5hsj/minutes-second-f2f-meeting-6-sept…> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/a28a0p6spz2gtpe/minutes-teleconference-17-septemb…> Please note that both sets of minutes use the new style of separating out decisions and actions made at the meeting. Regards -- Samantha Dickinson Internet governance consultant & writer Lingua Synaptica

4 3

ICG FAQ V2 ..
by Manal Ismail Oct. 1, 2014

Oct. 1, 2014

Dear All .. Please find attached, and in Dropbox, I new version reflecting our discussion on the call and comments received over email, to the extent possible .. Please note that I have re-numbered the questions to accommodate the 2 new ones, so please take care when referring to question numbers as they may not be the same any more .. I believe the following highlights may be useful in reviewing this version of the document .. I can see that the following 2 questions still need further discussion: Q#5 on IANA, with the following suggestions on the table: - A new draft of the question and its answer - whether to delete the question - And a range of suggestions regarding definitions, reference documents, functions within the contract, and those beyond Q#16 on coordination with accountability process - Redraft of the question - Concern about locking our timeline with the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process - Debate on ICG will conducting an analysis of their [the received proposals] overall implications for ICANN accountability On the other hand, regarding the following 2 additional questions, kindly note that: Q#3 on ICG secretariat - I have tried to redraft this one to focus more on ICG independence Q#11 on submitting individual proposals - I have replaced the last sentence with this: "But, of course, this will be possible only if you have already participated in the process convened by the relevant operational community." The rest of the changes are hopefully straight forward .. Appreciate if you can either use track changes or, like Patrik mentioned, send the exact text proposed for further iterations .. Kind Regards --Manal

1 0