[CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Sep 5 20:07:23 UTC 2016
Agree - thanks both.
On 05/09/2016 21:06, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> Thanks. I think it is a more accurate representation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Robinson
> <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>> wrote:
>
> Greg and others,
>
> Apologies, for the slow response.
>
> I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally
> ended up with:
>
> The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
>
> a)The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
>
> b)Their Chairs
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55
> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>
>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions
> of the "Names Community"
>
> Provisionally, we have ended up with:
>
> a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
>
> b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions
> about the "names community". I think the phrase suggested; on
> behalf of "members of the CWG" may be somewhat personal. On
> behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG" may be more ideal.
>
> On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn
> the CO to form a group smaller than current CWG for the task
> is worth exploring future.
>
> Regards
> 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't
> get a quick redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I
> will appreciate a dialout.
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> #3 might be worth exploring further.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible
> Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
>
> Thank you for these very helpful comments.
>
> We may be overthinking things a bit.
>
> The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names
> Community" and has done some very significant things
> acting in that capacity. Our report and recommendations
> were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the
> "Names Community." This isn't much more than an
> implementation detail of that report. So thinking that we
> need to come up with a whole new understanding of the
> "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on this
> small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
>
> Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC,
> IFR and SCWG, with the CCG representatives and/or the
> signatory acting primarily as a delivery mechanism or
> point of contact. Both the CCG and the actions taken by
> the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other
> groups.
>
> Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight
> should be handled by the Chartering Organizations and to
> the extent applicable, by the methods we've created (CSC,
> IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG representatives.
>
> ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role
> should be that of a conduit. ICANN itself should not have
> an operational role, since the oversight involved here is
> either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight of an
> entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust). As indicated
> above and in my earlier email, we already have operational
> solutions for most (if not all) of the tasks of the CCG
> and signatory.
>
> At the next level the question is: how should the
> Chartering Organizations function in order to deal with
> the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members, etc., etc.).
> So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from
> the Chartering Organizations in some fashion. This is
> probably a subset of the groups listed in my prior email
> (but without they idea that any of them _are_ the Names
> Community). Leading candidates in my mind are:
>
> 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.The CSC
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck
> <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>; Greg Shatan
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible
> Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160905/e0e967d5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list