[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
Jonathan Robinson
jrobinson at afilias.info
Wed Dec 16 08:56:01 UTC 2015
All,
Grace has provided an edited version of the Sidely drafted letter which
seeks to encompass previous comments on list as well as the outcome of our
discussions in yesterday's meeting of the CWG.
Lise and I have reviewed that version and made some minor additional
changes.
The document is attached in both redline and clean versions for your careful
review. Please do so and provide any final comments / edits by the deadline
of 24 hours from the CWG meeting yesterday i.e. no later than 16h00 UTC on
17 December 2015 (Tomorrow).
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org]
Sent: 16 December 2015 00:11
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG
3rd Draft Proposal
Hi Milton, all,
I changed the one instance where there was a reference to an "IANA
Department" to "PTI". However, this was a reference to a document that
Xavier had provided DT-O, so it may not be appropriate to change the
language in this case, as it may confuse the reference.
Also, we used the term "IANA Budget" in the CWG proposal. Did you intend to
have that language switched to "PTI Budget"? If so, this is a deviation in
consistency of language from the proposal and past public comment
submissions to the CCWG. I would recommend consistency, but I leave the
decision to the group.
Any comments? A possible compromise could be "PTI/IANA Budget"
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Milton Mueller
<milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >
Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM
To: Milton Mueller <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >, Jonathan
Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info> >
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> "
<cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG
3rd Draft Proposal
Sorry, all, that message was sent from a mobile using speech to text and
certain things got garbled. (My favorite: "banana functions operator"!!) It
also got sent before completion. Here is a complete and corrected version
Jonathan, Lise and all:
I reviewed the response and only found one thing that needs modification.
Section 2, about IANA 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 by embedding
IANA so deeply within ICANN that it really is not a separate corporation.
One other issue. It is now important to be careful about the name of the
PTI. Originally, PTI stood for "post-transition IANA". Going forward the
term IANA will be a trademark owned by the IETF trust or some equivalent,
and the domains will also be owned by the trust. Because it is a principle
of the transition that the IANA functions operator will not control these
terms, it would not be appropriate for the name the corporate name of PTI to
include IANA. So perhaps we can just use the acronym.
Aside from these I think Sidley did a comprehensive job of assessing the
CCWG proposal.
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:11 PM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG
3rd Draft Proposal
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151216/f0056d54/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG Comment Letter_v2_redline JR Edit (Clean).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151216/f0056d54/CWGCommentLetter_v2_redlineJREditClean-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG Comment Letter_v2_redline JR Edit.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 41121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151216/f0056d54/CWGCommentLetter_v2_redlineJREdit-0001.docx>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list