[CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Jul 22 13:40:49 UTC 2014
All good contributions Avri.
I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.
I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"
I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.
On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.
Chuck
Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM
To: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
Hi,
I have added a few more comments.
avri
On 21-Jul-14 14:30, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Comments on the draft circulated this morning
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
> Date: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of
> charter & notes from meeting
>
> Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a
> no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful.
>
>
>
> As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a
> cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990's with NSI (Network
> Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign). Amendment 11 of that agreement
> contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our
> call today. That amendment can be found at
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/fi
> les/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3
> D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WC
> dNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=efdea554c36c6e89bc9091f
> 91002b9cb65aaf9925b0adcb7cde0269e98d74673>
> . Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: "NSI agrees to
> continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server
> for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such
> time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of
> these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity."
>
>
>
> Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling
> has made since the transition was proposed:
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secreta
> ry-strickling-icann-high-level-governmental-meeting
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/sp
> eechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-icann-high-l
> evel-governmental-meeting&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11
> wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNv
> qDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=66b743cba1a8c7ea6b7bbe157e313fb88ca227
> 128ea03bd57ee87a9333f99b5b>
>
>
>
> Relevant excerpt:
>
>
>
> /In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of
> conditions that we insist must apply to the transition. First, the
> proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model 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. And in that regard, *all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role.
> Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked
> for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process.*
> 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./
>
>
>
> 2.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-rela
> ted-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ot
> her-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-t
> ransition-questions-and-answ&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2B
> U11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abE
> iNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=8fdc51eac2aced006e4475fee4408ea1d6a
> d7647c1d5e8acc8747cbd96b965e6>
>
>
> *Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions?**
>
> *A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions
> pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA.*
>
> **Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative
> agreement with Verisign?*
>
> A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined
> with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone
> file management), which *would require that NTIA coordinate a related
> and parallel transition* in these responsibilities.
>
>
>
> 3. Larry's comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French
> GAC rep question):
>
>
>
>>>LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET
>>>ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR
>>>ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED
>>>STATES' ROLE. SO
> *WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR
> THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR
> ADJUSTED.*
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika
> Konings
> *Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31 AM
> *To:* CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of
> charter & notes from meeting
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest
> version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version.
> Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the
> composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III
> as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean
> version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically
> called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition
> to other comments / edits.
>
>
>
> Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes,
> recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJSXOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=MhK0nK4WCdNtpF59v7abEiNvqDz%2F8rwdQktqq%2B7qNL8%3D%0A&s=b0bc76dd845150fe0eb8f5291eeb3613181fcb4c536b4d1fb6dde96ca9989d32>.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Notes / Action Items 21/7:*
>
> * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further
> discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and
> consultation has not been factored in
> * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA
> differs from other communities which may also be reflected in
> proposals that will eventually be submitted
> * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from
> competing proposals according to charter
> * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or
> testing, incl. no transition window
>
> /Composition of ccWG/
>
> * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it
> relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max
> 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving
> it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for
> getting the work done).
> * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others
> interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal
> members of SO/AC/SG/C
> * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to
> participate to their respective groups?
> * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of
> representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities.
> Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all,
> both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings.
> * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made,
> only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to
> clarify this in the charter
>
> /Public consultations/
>
> * At least one, if not two public comment forums
>
> /Involvement of the GAC/
>
> * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment
> to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC
> membership in ICG)
>
> /Development of workplan and timelines/
>
> * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year
> deadline may not be feasible)
> * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as
> a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in
> interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG.
> * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with
> initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might
> be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe
> some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but
> the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved.
> * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next
> week's meeting
>
> /Charter/
>
> (Edits in real time)
>
> * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names.
> * Further comment on email list:
> o Accountability
> o Role of Maintainer
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
>
More information about the CWG-DT-Stewardship
mailing list