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

Thu Sep 1 16:53:13 UTC 2016

Hello,

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
>
> I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;

SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a
good start:

“All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including
individuals and organizations.”

2) decide who can best represent that community.

SO: I see two aspects here:

1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe
this should be ICANN

2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering
organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.

>
Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to accurately
do their job.
>
SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it has
ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global community
in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including those who
are not members/participants of CWG.

Regards
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
"Names Community"
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> The CWG
> All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC,
SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
> An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the
CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
> GNSO and ccNSO
> GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC
> GNSO, ccNSO and GAC
> GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC
> Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations
> The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions
represented on the CSC)
> The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily
acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC)
> Any other combination of ICANN-created structures
> An existing non-ICANN-created structure
> A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20160901/d408bc26/attachment.html>