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

Mon Feb 23 21:37:15 UTC 2015

Hi Greg,

2 out of the 3 communities have submitted to ICG and I have not heard ICG
indicate that their proposals did not adequately address ICG questions. So
there is enough reference to have an idea of what a response to ICG RFP
looks like; for instance the RIR proposal indicates SLA principles but
those principles will then be used by relevant experts to develop the
actual SLA at a later time, another example is the actual
contract/agreement wording which will be developed by the relevant legal
experts. I think this is also largely how the IETF proposal is structured.

So it may be efficient to have a general agreement on a transition plan and
principles before the actual text of each aspect of the plan is drafted.

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Feb 2015 21:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/7f97d671/attachment-0001.html>