[CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"

[Greg Shatan]

Chuck,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
practical answer under these circumstances.  It does however help clarify
and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.

The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various
actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email).  The way
the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the
Names Community.  Thinking about this after your email, I think what we
need to find (or create) instead is a valid *representative* group (or
group of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the
context of this Agreement.

Consider the following:

How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders of
Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the
actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?

Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of
groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?

As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global
Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names
Community.  Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various
existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will
adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising
stewardship and accountability functions.

As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional
Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively.  Consider
how the definition you propose compares to these definitions.
Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following
parallel definitions:

Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
address numbers including individuals and organizations
RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol parameters
including individuals and organizations

​While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far broader
than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community
Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement.
Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of
those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger
communities.  We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.

Greg​


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks for getting this started Greg.  Here are my first reactions.
>
> ·         I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
> community out.
>
> ·         Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
> ‘Names Community’.
>
> ·         It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
> structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a
> structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the
> ‘Names Community’.
>
> ·         A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
> doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will
> likely leave some out.
>
>
>
> Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
> Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”  I welcome
> critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
>
>
>
> On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
>
>
>
> We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community" for
> purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement.  The role of the Names
> Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
>
>
>
> Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community,"
> which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness
> and in no particular order:
>
>
>
>    1. The CWG
>    2. All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC,
>    GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
>    3. An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from
>    the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
>    4. GNSO and ccNSO
>    5. GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC
>    6. GNSO, ccNSO and GAC
>    7. GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC
>    8. Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations
>    9. The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions
>    represented on the CSC)
>    10. The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not
>    necessarily acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the
>    CSC)
>    11. Any other combination of ICANN-created structures
>    12. An existing non-ICANN-created structure
>    13. A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures
>    14. A completely new structure
>
> ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names
> Community."
>
>
>
> The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be
> responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the
> Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where
> appropriate, including:
>
>
>
>    - Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG
>    (Community Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community
>    - Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair
>    and primary point of contact for the IETF Trust
>    - Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the
>    standards set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified
>    process of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute
>    resolution," which is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the
>    IFR process)
>    - Instructing the CCG Representatives
>    - Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN)
>    is being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.)
>    - Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License
>    Agreement with a new IANA Operator and participating in these
>    interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants
>    to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the
>    parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License
>    Agreement
>    - Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to
>    its designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the
>    License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or
>    deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that
>    would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be
>    CSC/IFR work in substance).
>    - Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the
>    Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its
>    License Agreement.
>    - Withdrawing from the Community Agreement
>    - Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory
>    to this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a
>    responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG)
>    - Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it
>    doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
>
> Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible
> ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for
> this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may
> have, as well).
>
>
>
> Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs
> to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the *very
> limited time-frame* we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160831/a6a4f59b/attachment-0001.html>