[CWG-Stewardship] implementation

Tue Feb 24 13:53:11 UTC 2015

It seems to me that Larry told us how much detail to provide: enough to be able to implement the transition.  To me that is pretty clear.  For anything that has to happen with the transition, a skeleton would not be sufficient.  That said, could there be items in the plan that could be refined after the transition because they are longer term possibilities?  I think so but we would have to have enough detail to be assured that they are feasible and implementable.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:24 AM
To: Greg Shatan; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] implementation

Hi Greg,

your points made to ask for more clarity on the implementation details to be included in the proposals are fair. The implementation question was raised by Larry Strickling in Singapore, and since them I feel – having had several discussions – that there is a broad range of understanding within the various communities what does this mean.

I’ve taken this to initiate a discussion at the next ICG call (tomorrow). I hope the ICG could find common understanding within relatively short time. The outcome may – or may not – have also an impact on the protocols and numbers proposals.

A related CWG request to the ICG may be helpful.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM
To: Jonathan Robinson<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: John Poole<mailto:jp1 at expri.com> ; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

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<mailto: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<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
Sent: 23 February 2015 21:37
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: John Poole; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>

Fax  212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>

gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

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

www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Gregory S. Shatan • 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<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

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

www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

________________________________
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150224/702bad2e/attachment-0001.html>