[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

[Mueller, Milton L]

Greg:
☺ I see that you _still_ don’t quite understand what the IANA is. That is to say, the distinction between an IFO, a functionary contracted to carry out certain functions for the operational communities who are responsible for the registries, and “the IANA” – the generic term for the top level registries as embodied in the IETF RFCs – seems  to elude you. I refer you back to our original conversations about this.  You were arguing that ICANN or PTI should control the trademarks and domains and you lost that argument. I will have to continue to insist, therefore, that PTI not be called “the IANA” and I really don’t see why you insist on contesting this, because there is nothing tangible to gain by so doing. Fundamentally, I care simply because it is inaccurate but it also has implication for separability and a clean handling of the trademark issue.

I am also a bit astounded by the story you have made up about PTI’s organization. Please direct me to anywhere in our proposal, or in our deliberations, where it was decided that PTI should be nothing more than a re-labeling of ICANN’s IANA department and that the transition would not involve any movement, separation or transfer of facilities. I would be very curious to know how and when you got the idea that your personal assumptions about what the separation of PTI got ratified as the one and only version of implementation (“that is our proposal”). PTI is a separate corporation. It may be a controlled subsidiary of ICANN but it is a separate entity, with its own staff, budget, management, and board. Sure, there can be some resource sharing with ICANN but I think we need to devote some serious thought to the implications of blurring the lines between it and ICANN so much that the whole point of legal separation is lost.

--MM



From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:06 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L
Cc: jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

My comments on the letter are attached. (Sorry for the "anonymization" of most of my comments; that appears to be the default setting on this particular document.)

In response to Milton's comments, I made one further change.  I think the remaining references to IANA are appropriate and should not be changed.  Also in response to Milton's comments:

While PTI would be a separate corporation, and the current IANA staff would become PTI employees, PTI will be treated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN and will not be set up as an isolated, independent organization.  As stated in our proposal, "ICANN will provide funding and administrative resources to PTI through an agreed-upon budget." Operationally, this means that PTI will not have its own full-time administrative staff and support services (HR, accounting, IT, office manager, etc.) but would have a support services arrangement where ICANN would provide those services to PTI.  Similarly, PTI would not be kicked out of ICANN's offices and forced to set up its own facilities, but would have some form of sharing arrangement (possibly as formal as a sublease, possibly not).  It would be expensive and wasteful for a corporation with a dozen or so staffers to hire full-time people across a range of admin/support/back-office functions, and this was never contemplated in our plan.  I don't think this subverts our proposal; this is our proposal.  If PTI is going to be disaffiliated from ICANN, there will be ample time to make arrangements to replace ICANN's support services and to move out of ICANN -- and if PTI becomes affiliated with another larger entity in place of ICANN, that entity can provide support services and potentially facilities as well. Only if a post-separation PTI is truly stand-alone would it need to incur the costs of being an independent entity.

As far as the use of IANA name goes, I disagree with what I believe Milton was saying (the email appears somewhat garbled).  As part of the license from the new holder of the IANA trademarks, PTI can be granted the right to use the marks in identifying itself.  Indeed, PTI should be licensed the right to use the term "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" as its name, since that is exactly the function that it will be carrying out.  PTI would also be using the IANA logo (which combines "IANA" in stylized letters with the name "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority").  If PTI disaffiliates from ICANN, these rights would go along with it.  If there is a future separation, and the IANA functions are no longer handled by PTI, the new IFO would be licensed these rights.  If there's a partial separation, the mini-IFOs could be termed "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority-Names" ("IANA-Names"), IANA-Numbers and IANA-Protocols (or something like that).  Indeed it would be rather odd for the IANA Functions Operator (or operators) not to be called "IANA."

Greg

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Jonathan, Lise and all:
I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification.

Section 2, about I am a budget. In this paragraph there are references to an "IANA department". After the transition there will be no IANA department there will only be PTI. I suggest that all references to IANA in this paragraph be changed to PTI.

Furthermore, the section about transparency of cost seems to be based on the premise that IANA still is a department of ICANN rather than a separate corporation that is contracted to perform the functions. It is not clear from this discussion whether you are referring to the existing costs of the IANA department, which need to be itemized perhaps in order to determine the size of the PTI budget going forward, or whether you are referring to the PTI budget. For example when you refer to support functions allocation and shared resources what are you taking about? one would think that when PTI is separate almost all costs will be direct. PTI should be a separate organization with its own facilities and staff. We don't want to encourage a situation where the purpose of legal separation is subverted but I am betting I am so deeply within I can that it really is not a separate corporation.

One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the PTI. Going forward the term IANA Will be a trademark in the domain owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent. Because it is a principle of the transition that the banana functions operator will not control these terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI

Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>> wrote:
All,

Please see attached for the (Sidley Austin authored) proposed CWG response to the current CCWG proposal with reference to the CWG dependence on that proposal.

Our plan is for the CWG to review and comment on this response before (and possibly during) the meeting on Tuesday next week such that we get ourselves into a position to provide a thorough response to the current CCWG proposal.

In addition to communicating our response to the CCWG via the Co-chairs, we also plan to submit the final document into the public comment forum before 21 December and to provide it to the CCWG chartering organisations.

Therefore, please provide any feedback or suggested edits as soon as you are able to properly review the document.

Thank-you


Jonathan

From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
Sent: 11 December 2015 06:57
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

Dear Client Committee,

Attached is a draft of the CWG comment letter on the 3rd CCWG draft proposal.  We will leave it to you to forward along to the CWG.

Best regards,
Holly and Sharon


From: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:00 AM
To: Client Committee
Subject: [client com] Call next week and approved project

Dear Sidley team,

Below is a note from the Chairs outlining a process for review of the CCWG-Accountability dependencies. Following on the process for the CCWG’s 2nd Public Comment, the Chairs suggested to the CWG-Stewardship that Sidley assist with tracking these dependencies. During the CWG-Stewardship meeting today (archived here<https://community.icann.org/x/kbpYAw>), the group approved instruction to Sidley for this project.

The request is for Sidley to work on item #1 and have in mind that the CWG-Stewardship will be requesting item #2 as an update in the future. I’ve copied the two items directly below for your convenience:
1.      Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and;
2.      Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality  (if indeed it does).

Ideally, this work should be ready for the CWG-Stewardship call on 15 December so that the CWG-Stewardship can review and make its submission to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment thereafter.

I’m sending this note on behalf of the Client Committee due to the relative urgency of the project. To discuss other approved projects, the Client Committee proposes a teleconference next week. Please reply to indicate any times/dates for which you are unavailable and we will schedule accordingly.

Thank you,
Grace

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Organization: Afilias
Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Date: Friday, November 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability

All,

During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group.
In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal.

The CCWG have had a formal update<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th.

We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly.

Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages:


1.      Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and

2.      Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality  (if indeed it does).

We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to


A.     Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work

B.     Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position.

We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks.

Thank-you.



Lise & Jonathan

Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship



****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
<CWG Comment Letter.docx>
<Untitled attachment 00135.txt>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
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/20151211/1ea1255d/attachment-0001.html>