[CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

[Greg Shatan]

John, it's become clear that the NTIA is going to want a turnkey proposal.
A proposal that does not include all the implementation pieces would be
sent back as incomplete.  It may be possible to engage in some informal
discussions with the ICG, etc., to see if we're on the right track, so we
don't waste time and resources, but the submitted proposal has to be such
that it can be activated seamlessly upon the extinction of the NTIA IANA
Functions Agreement.

Christopher, the only ones who would be directly remunerated for working
with the CWG would be the independent legal counsel; they will be
remunerated by ICANN.  Everyone else is a volunteer.  That said, for some
people, it may be part of their job responsibilities to participate, while
others may be doing this outside of any mandate from an employer or
client.  So, "volunteer" may mean different things to different people.

Greg

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Thankyou, John. Very interesting and relevant comments and advice.
>
> > … unnecessary waste of resources (time and attorney fees)
>
> BTW, who is being remunerated by whom for work in this area? I am under
> the impression that the members and participants of CWG are volunteers.
> Correct?
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
> On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:39, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jonathan and Lise and Greg:
> I very much support the idea of a Board liaison. I suggest consideration
> be given, in choosing the liaison, of a member of ICANN senior staff who
> has access not only to the Board, its Chair and the ICANN CEO, but also
> ICANN legal staff and outside counsel (Jones Day). The CWG is now grappling
> with very sensitive issues that could impact the Board, ICANN as a whole,
> and its future legal liabilities post-Transition (see, for example, my
> earlier post to Avri
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001879.html )
>
> It is also for this reason, I have some concerns about the methodology
> proposed going forward--"design teams" etc. My perspective, of course,
> relates to the external Trust proposal with which I am most familiar ( as
> amended
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001774.html>
> ). I have no problem with Jonathan's most recent Proposed Design Team:
> IANA Service Levels
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001882.html>
> however I would suggest that the "design team" first begin their work by
> obtaining from the IANA department, the existing, in place, IANA Service
> Levels metrics (from which many reports are presently published) and the
> existing Complaint Process for IANA-related complaints. Then ask what is
> missing, needs to be changed, or added?
>
> At our last meeting it was said by Greg Shatan that the CWG proposal
> needed to be "turn-key" (all the details included). Some disagreed then, I
> disagree now. We need a proposal that sets forth a framework in sufficient
> detail to meet the requirements of NTIA, expectations of ICG, and include
> components deemed necessary by the Names community, in order to transition
> NTIA out of its current role "in the coordination of the Internet’s domain
> name system (DNS)." Once ICG has approved the CWG proposal, then additional
> work can be done to make it "turn-key." If the ICG rejects the CWG initial
> proposal, we will not have wasted time and money unnecessarily.
>
> In the context of the external Trust model, the Trust instrument
> (document) does not need to be drafted now--that would be an unnecessary
> waste of resources (time and attorney fees)--it should be sufficient to
> indicate the sources of its principles (NETmundial Statement
> <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, Affirmation
> of Commitments
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en>)
> and its purpose. The drafting of the Trust instrument itself, at the
> appropriate time, would need to include not only the CWG attorney or
> successor Counsel on behalf of the global multistakeholder community, but
> also ICANN legal staff and ICANN's counsel Jones Day, as well as counsel
> for the US government and perhaps others. I would assume, for example, that
> the ICANN Board, as part of its fiduciary duties to the Corporation in
> preparing for the IANA transition, already has been advised and received a
> legal memorandum of potential new liabilities ICANN is facing once it no
> longer has benefit of "government contractor immunity" and similar defenses
> available to it by virtue of its NTIA contract. Terms of the Trust
> instrument may provide ways to lessen or obviate those potential
> liabilities, antitrust or otherwise.
>
> Further, in view of some comments at ICANN 52, it would also be advisable
> to include the makeup of its initial Board of Trustees, the methodology for
> selection of successor Trustees, as well as the jurisdiction where the
> Trust is to be registered. As to jurisdiction, we need input from the CWG
> attorney. As to the Board of Trustees issues, I would recommend first
> obtaining input and recommendations from ICANN's present Board Chairman and
> CEO. Right now NTIA provides some support and non-binding advice and
> counsel for ICANN's Board, *e.g.*, when governments or others complain
> about ICANN policies or actions. Post-transition, the US government will be
> just another member of GAC. It is possible, or even likely,
> post-transition, ICANN, particularly its Board of Directors, will come
> under increased pressures, not only from stakeholders within ICANN who are
> jockeying for position and power, but also governments, particularly those
> who really do not believe in multistakeholderism nor support the idea of a
> free, open, stable and secure Internet and DNS. Therefore a Board of
> Trustees supportive of ICANN and multistakeholderism is a critical,
> somewhat sensitive issue.
>
> Finally, Greg has posted [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA
> IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001869.html>
> -- in the context of the external Trust it is proposed that the Trust for
> the global multistakeholder community hold all such property--tangible and
> intangible--"that the Trust property include the IP referenced by
> the IETF proposal <
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("iana.org"and
> other associated marks), as well as the Internet "authoritative root
> server" referenced in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in
> addition to all of the U.S. Government’s rights and duties included within
> its “stewardship” role over the Internet and DNS, including the right to
> issue the IANA Functions Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a
> registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
>
> If, however, it is a Design Team's job is to eliminate one or more of the
> four proposals pre-ICANN52 in the course of their work, then CWG leadership
> needs to be clear about that now.
>
> Best regards,
> John Poole
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/595166a7/attachment.html>