[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

Tue Apr 21 19:24:18 UTC 2015

and so the numbers and protocols proposals should not dictate to the names OC what to do.  Right?
and in like vein, the names OC proposal should not dictate to the numbers or protocols OCs.  Right?

regarding names - not all names are created equal or are run under the same sets of rules.  I, for one,
find that the management of .INT question to be flawed in a number of respects… the actual DT never
met, the chair formulated a “Fact Sheet” and then made a recommendation that was carried forward.

Further discussion has revolved around the process point of the GAC & cc/gTLD constituents acting as
proxy (although without a mandate, either expressed or implied from the affected parties) to decide the fate 
of the .INT registry.

The ONLY open/transparent option is to ask the .INT registrants what they would like to see done going 
forward.

manning
bmanning at karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 21April2015Tuesday, at 11:32, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Martin
> I also think Andrew’s clear distinction between IANA and names-related IANA functions was correct.
> 
> Because IANA is currently controlled and operated by the names operational community (ICANN), there is no way for a names proposal to _not_ touch on numbers or protocol parameters in some way. That is the “design flaw” that makes the names part of this hard. The legal separation makes this issue less of a problem but will require some coordination and adjustment by the other OCs. But that is not a big deal; the numbers proposal already required some adjustment and coordination by the protocols community. There is no way to avoid these interdependencies.  But adjustments to facilitate compatibility are not the same as one OC telling another what to do.
> 
> --MM
> 
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:33 PM
> To: Greg Shatan; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
> 
> I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look at numbers or protocol parameters.  While that might sit uneasily, I’m not sure I really know about the flow of funding or the accountability/stewardship role in the light of Milton’s assertion.
> 
> Specifically asking CRISP & IANAPLAN for views as to where they would see their relationship lying (given the ring-fencing of the IANA functions operator into a subsidiary in ICANN) would seem to me to be appropriate.  They could, after all, contract/sign an MoU with either ICANN or ICANN’s affiliate.
> 
> Martin
> 
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: 21 April 2015 17:14
> To: CW Lists
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
> 
> I agree with Alissa that this needs to be clarified.  Some of the lack of clarity is due to concern about having a proposal that goes beyond naming functions.  This has resulted in some odd phrasings and odd proposals.
> 
> In my view, splitting the IANA personnel and assets so this is a "names-only" proposal is unrealistic and unnecessary. Because we are within ICANN, we have a different relationship to the IANA Functions group.  We should make it clear that the whole ball of wax would move to PTI, and put that out for public comment.  We should flag this specifically for the CRISP and IANAPLAN group.
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> In this instance, I agree with Christopher.  I believe both statements are accurate (though the first is less than mellifluous in its phrasing).
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36 AM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> I prefer the existing text, unchanged.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> On 21 Apr 2015, at 16:47, Brenden Kuerbis <bnkuerbi at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marika,
> 
> The first bullet in Section III.A says:
> 
> ICANN, through an affiliate controlled by ICANN, to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services through the creation of a separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI).
> 
> Section III.A.i.a, which is text provided by Sidley in consultation with the CWG, says:
> 
> A contract would be entered between PTI and ICANN, which would give PTI the rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator. 
> 
> 
> I believe the latter statement is correct, and the prior bullet is inconsistent with it (or at least very unclear). Perhaps Sidley could provide more accurate text for the bullet in Section III.A, or I would suggest:
> 
> 	• Creation of a legally separated affiliate, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), to provide the IANA functions.
> 
> This would be followed by the existing bullets:
> 
> 	• Establishment of service level agreement between ICANN and PTI, the IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services.
> 	• Changes proposed to root zone environment and relationship with root zone maintainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Brenden
> 
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
> 
> Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible.
> 
> Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. 
> 
> You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
> 
> For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf.
> 
> Thanks again for all your feedback!
> 
> Marika 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship