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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Wed Dec 16 14:33:59 UTC 2015 

This looks pretty good to me.  I have just two personal comments:

1.       Regarding comment A1, I personally think that the change of 'IANA Department' to 'PTI' should be made as long as we make a direct quote but we could insert a footnote that explains that it is understood that this would mean PTI in the transition.  Another approach would be to avoid a direct quote, in which case I think it would be okay to say 'PTI' instead of the IANA Department.

2.       Regarding comment A2, whether or not we say 'just the IANA names customers or all customers' depends on the context.  It is difficult to answer this question without knowing how all of the IANA function costs will be budgeted.  Will all of the IANA function costs be built into the PTI budget, including those for the protocol and numbers support?  If so, then it is probably okay to say 'IANA customers' when talking about the PTI budget.  On the other hand, if the IANA support costs for the protocol and numbers communities are not included in the PTI Budget, then when talking about the PTI Budget, I think we should say 'IANA names customers'.  We made need to find out from Xavier how they anticipate budgeting the support costs for the protocol and numbers communities.  If that is not possible in time for the submission of the letter, then I don't think it is a big problem to just leave the text as is for now.  If we obtain clarity on how all of the IANA functions costs will be budgeted, then we may need to modify the wording in the entire paragraph to match the feedback we get.  For example, if we learn that costs for all IANA functions will be in the PTI budget, then just talking about PTI instead of PTI/IANA may work.

I hope this makes sense.  If not, please let me know.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:56 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

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<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; 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

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/20151216/953a580f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list