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

Tue Feb 24 05:38:20 UTC 2015

Hi Greg,

I see your point, however the fact still remain that the CWG at the moment
don't even have skeletal transition plan yet. i.e we have not even gotten
close to the state of the response made by other communities. So it's not
only about what is sent to ICG because the entire details will still need
to be done before the transition anyway. For me the question is whether it
is strategic enough to start working on details when appropriate plan has
not been decided upon. However considering that the plan development
process has been put on halt pending legal[1] perhaps getting details of
non-proposal specific issues is a good use of our time. This does not mean
that the details would/should be sent ICG.

Nevertheless, I am not against asking ICG for such clarification question.
I just think we already have a real source of answer (which is the
submission of the RIR and IETF)

Regards
1. Which I doubt will do the magic of resolving our fundamental
differences/issues
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Feb 2015 23:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other,
> but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail
> required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John.
> Because it's not our opinion that matters.  I'll leave it to our chairs to
> determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from
> the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our
> proposal.
>
> For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as
> the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional
> documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)?  Or is a fully drafted
> contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that
> is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?
>
> Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN
> working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that
> will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or
> is it something in between?
>
> For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a
> mention that there will be one?
>
> I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me).  And I'd
> rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than
> slower.  So, I would actually prefer to be wrong.
>
> But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete
> proposal.  That's what matters.  They in turn can consult Larry Strickling
> if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds.  Then we can go
> forward with certainty.
>
> I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of
> detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail,
> and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that,
> there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the
> IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can
> begin. Is that really what's intended?
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info
> > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Seun,
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, these “reference proposals” are very helpful to us in various
>> ways and as we develop our draft, I think we should continue to be aware of
>> these as exactly that, very useful references.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 23 February 2015 21:37
>> *To:* Greg Shatan
>> *Cc:* John Poole; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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/20150224/218241e8/attachment-0001.html>