- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft Report, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo… Comments can be sent via this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to to highlight the principle amendments introduced in the third Draft Report and provide you with an update on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the second Draft Report (see communication from 9 September 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-September/00078…). 1. Community powers In the third Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows (see ANNEX 01 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): - Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reject changes to ICANN’s Bylaws - Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation - Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board. - Recall the entire ICANN Board - Initiate a binding Independent Review Process (where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results) - Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of Post-Transition IANA separation [We would like to note that this power refers to the CWG-Stewardship transition proposal] 2. Sole Designator Model The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure, and introduced a structure called the Sole Membership Model. During and following the public consultation, objections to this model were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Designator Model. The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: - To implement the “Sole Designator” model, ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to as the “Empowered Community”. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire Board. Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely implement their decisions. - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply with that decision. - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to start the process and to exercise community power) are described in ANNEX 04 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) Do you have any comments with regard to this model? 3. Revised Mission The third Draft Report suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in ANNEX 05 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). ICANN's mission with regards to Internet number resources, is described as follows: “ Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” (ANNEX 5 p8, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The description is in line with the feedback provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the first public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) of the third Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The third Draft Report provides that two considerations suggest that the CCWG-Accountability should not propose that Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: - Public comment on the first and second draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. - Second, the Empowered Community could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states, “The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.” (ANNEX 3, p 6, para 25 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) 5. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives have communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. An arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the global policy development process 2. An arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.” Accordingly, in the third Draft Report (as well as in the second Draft Report) there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (ANNEX 07, para 22 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However, in the annex describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (ANNEX 08, para 8 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IGF 2015 output document: "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 09 Dec '15

09 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, In earlier emails we asked you to review the draft outcome document for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Best Practice Forum on IPv6. This is to let you know the 2015 IGF inter-sessional work has now concluded and the final output document has been published on the IGF website. It is available for download at: http://goo.gl/BXBzTn Acknowledging the need for a increased rate of IPv6 adoption, the documents highlights numerous examples and best practices that can help businesses and governments with their IPv6 deployment projects. A large section of the document is dedicated to role and function of IPv6 task forces, which can be instrumental to a successful IPv6 deployment in a particular country or region. In addition it provides an overview of various capacity building programs that are available, which includes the RIPE NCC Training Courses and IPv6 Roadshows. We hope this document provides useful guidance for our community members and stakeholders that face the important step of enabling IPv6 in their networks and services. We would like to thank everybody who contributed to this document and in particular Susan Chalmers, Izumi Okutani and Wim Degezelle who jointly coordinated and supported the work on behalf of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Nov '15

25 Nov '15

My sincere apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)apnic.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 25 november 2015 09:53:26 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find agenda and webex details for today crisp team scheduled teleconference > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> >> Date: 25 November 2015 at 2:53:42 PM AEST >> To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>>, <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >> >> Hi German, >> >> >> Thanks for the reminder and below is the suggested agenda for the CRISP Team call today. >> >> --- >> AGENDA >> >> 1. Agenda review >> >> 2. Action items >> a. Minutes >> b. The CRISP review of SLA ver.3 >> >> 3. Update >> a. IGF 2015 >> b. RIPE71 >> >> 4. Implementation Status >> a. Review Committee >> b. SLA: CRISP Review >> c. IPR: Update from the call with other OC leaders >> >> 5. AOB >> --- >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>> >>>> Date: 6 November 2015 at 10:48:09 AM AEST >>>> To: <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >>>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> CRISP Meeting 4th Wednesday each month >>>> Scheduled: 25 Nov 2015, 11:00 PM to 26 Nov 2015, 12:00 AM >>>> Location: https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc> >>>> Invitees: German Valdez, German Valdez >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d…> >>>> Meeting number: 707 107 621 >>>> Meeting password: crisp >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN BY PHONE >>>> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >>>> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >>>> Access code: 707 107 621 >>>> >>>> Global call-in numbers: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532…> >>>> >>>> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >>>> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can't join the meeting? Contact support here: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CRISP mailing list >>>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CRISP mailing list >>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >> > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Reminder and Preparation for Tomorrow's RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session
by Meredith Whittaker 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Adding the coop-wg list so everyone has the latest info and incentive to show up for the session. I'd also like to give a big thank you to Collin for helping organize this session, and for chairing and coordinating in my absence! Thank you, Collin! Cheers and sorry to miss it, Meredith On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Collin Anderson <collin(a)measurementlab.net > wrote: > Hello all, > > Just a reminder that the Cooperation Working Group session for RIPE71 > <https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/> will take place > tomorrow, Thursday, 19 November 09:00 - 10:30, at the JW Marriott in the > Main Room. > > We have a packed (and interesting) set of sessions, so if you could upload > your slides <https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/upload-presentation/> beforehand, > this will ensure smooth succession across the presentations. If we could > plan for ten minutes average per presentation, that will provide time for a > few questions after each speaker ends. I will try to be short to make sure > that others have more time to engage the audience, and I believe a few > others have short presentations as well. > > Currently, the order of speakers is the following: > > - Digital Privacy in the EU, Valentina Pavel > - Export controls, human rights, and networked technologies, Collin > Anderson > - Access and poverty in the United States, Oana Niculaescu > - RIR accountability, Farzaneh Badii > - Experiences in Cooperation Between Governments and Community > Stakeholders, Tahar Schaa > - RIPE NCC report on the WSIS+10 process, Chris Buckridge > > If there is anything that I can do to assist or questions, please let me > know. I will make sure to be there a bit early to setup and coordinate any > last minute needs. > > Look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and hearing the excellent > presentations. > > Cordially, > Collin Anderson > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2015
by Chris Buckridge 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the tenth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place last week in Brazil: https://www.ripe.net/reports/igf-2015 Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

May it be still possible to present a short 3 slider about cooperation?
by Schaa, Tahar 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

Hello all, hello Meredith and Alain, sorry for being so late to for applying for a short slot. The team around the German government LIR de.government supported the PDP of ripe-655 in many discussions with and contributions for Andrew from UK MoD and by involving our colleagues from the Swiss government. In the end the PDP was successful. Therefore a good example for a great working cooperation with governments as equal community stakeholders is given by this. This is worth to point out from my perspective and on behalf of Constanze from German Federal Ministry of Interior, I would appreciate to receive 5 min. to focus on this new role of government LIRs in the cooperation WG session on Thursday. I look forward to RIPE71! Best wishes from the IGF2015 in Brazil at sunny 35 degrees J Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen <https://www.google.com/search?q=Tahar+Schaa> Tahar Schaa Management Consultant Cassini Consulting GmbH Bennigsen-Platz 1 40474 Düsseldorf T +49 (0) 151 11 44 38 75 F +49 (0) 211 65 85 41 34 mail <mailto:tahar.schaa@cassini.de> tahar.schaa(a)cassini.de visit <http://www.cassini.de/> www.cassini.de Think green - keep it on the screen! Cassini Consulting GmbH | Bennigsen-Platz 1 | 40474 Düsseldorf Geschäftsführer: Sven Wiedenhöfer | Michael Schmitz | Jörg Zängerling Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf | Registergericht Düsseldorf HRB 53235 Guiding ahead - Cassini ist Management- und Technologieberatung

1 0

Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement
by Nick Hilliard 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

Of relevance to RIPE Community members: NIck -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:45 +0000 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> here are some links to the relevant correspondence: 2015-06-03: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… 2015-09-07: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… Nick On 09/11/2015 14:03, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi, > > I have no idea why this was not shared on this list as i think its an > important piece (which should have been said a long time ago) > > Regards > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Athina Fragkouli* <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net > <mailto:athina.fragkouli@ripe.net>> > Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > > Dear all, > > For the record, in case you haven't seen it, the NRO issued a statement > on the revision of ICANN Mission Statement: > > https://www.nro.net/news/the-nro-ec-recognises-that-the-icann-mission-state… > > I share this for information purposes only. No further actions are required. > > Thank you, > Athina > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng/ > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 5313339 52 Lower Sandwith St | INEX - Internet Neutral | Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie

1 0

Final Version of the Internet Number Community - IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter
by Nick Hyrka 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSION OF THE INTERNET NUMBER COMMUNITY – IANA NUMBERING SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community Proposal, described in section III.A.4, is the establishment of a Review Committee to ensure that the service level defined in the proposed SLA for the IANA Numbering Services is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Further description of the Review of IANA Numbering Services is provided in Article 8 of the draft SLA. On 23 June 2015, the NRO EC invited all interested parties to review and comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter. This draft is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-v1 The Final Internet Number Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter As a result of the public consultation of the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter, the final Internet Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-final For the sake of clarity, you can find a tracked changes version of the first draft against the final version at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-redline Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-comments Next Steps The RIRs thank the community for its thoughtful comments. Each RIR community may now appoint their representatives to the IANA Numbering Services Review Committee in accordance with the Charter.

2 1

Co-op WG agenda
by Meredith Whittaker 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

Hi all, Collin Anderson (CCed) and I now have an agenda online for the RIPE71 CoopWG. https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ Please let us know if you have questions. We're looking forward to it! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP team 29th Teleconference November 5th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Nov '15

04 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The next CRISP team conference call details below. For those of you who will be at the upcoming RIPE meeting, we will give an update in the plenary on the current state of things in the IANA stewardship transition process. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Vice chair, CRISP Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 4 November 2015 at 13:29:50 GMT+1 > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP team 29th Teleconference November 5th 2015 13:00 UTC > > > Hi > > Please find below agenda and webex details for tomorrow CRISP Team Teleconference. > > As usual observers are welcome to join > > AGENDA > > 1. Agenda review > > 2. Action items > > 3. Update from ICANN54 > > 4. Status Update: Implementation > a. SLA > b. Review Committee > c. IPR > > 5. Timelines > > 6. IGF (Sessions about the IANA stewardship transition) > > WEBEX > > > CRISP Team 29th Meeting > Thursday, November 5, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m40c0647db272ca821bc72984fa658… > Meeting number: 705 133 517 > Meeting password: crisp > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 705 133 517 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Regards > > German Valdez > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IGF Best Practice Forum document review “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, As mentioned in my email on 24 August, over the past few months we have been working on a project to document some high-level best practices on IPv6 adoption, titled “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption.” This work is part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) inter-sessional efforts to create more tangible outcomes for the IGF by collecting and documenting best practices on a variety of topics. With the IGF 2015 taking place next week from 10-13 November, this project is drawing to a close and the final draft document is now published and open for review. The document is available at: http://review.intgovforum.org/?p=3987 You can use this same website to submit any comments. Comments will close on 14 November 2015, after which a final version of the document that incorporates any comments received will be released and made available for distribution. On day two of the IGF (11 November) from 09:00-10:30 local time (UTC-3) there will also be a session in which the main contributors will discuss the document and its main conclusions on what they believe are enabling factors that contribute to IPv6 adoption. Just like all sessions at the IGF, remote participation for this session will be available via http://www.intgovforum.org. Please follow the instructions that will be posted on that website. Finally I would like to thank all the RIPE community members that have contributed to this project, by responding to our survey or by making direct contributions on the mailing list or conference calls. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC - External Relations

1 0

Updated Third Draft Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services (SLAv) and Call for ICANN to Publicly Comment on SLAv3
by Nick Hyrka 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATED THIRD DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv3) AND CALL FOR ICANN TO PUBLICLY COMMENT ON SLAv3. Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf Third Draft SLA As a result of the public consultation of the second draft of the SLA, a third draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv3 against the second draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA_v2-comments_27Oct15.pdf In accordance with comments received from ICANN on 28 August 2015 during the public comment period for the second draft of the SLA, the RIRs now call for ICANN to provide its comments on SLAv3 in a public and transparent manner either through comments on the global IANA XFER mailing list (ianaxfer(a)nro.net) and/or open meetings between the RIRs and ICANN with capability for community members to observe. We invite ICANN and its legal team to provide any such comments by 30 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC in order to stay in line with the current timelines for successful and timely transition of the IANA Numbering Services. Subscription to the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list is open and available at: About the Third Draft SLA The draft SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv3 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA as well as informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA. It remains written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively before ICANN. It includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv3 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We are now in the negotiation phase with ICANN as IANA Numbering Services Operator which we intend to be an open process. During this final period wherein the RIRs invite ICANN to publicly comment and confer with the RIRs on SLAv3, our goal is to arrive at an SLA draft that is mutually acceptable to the RIRs and ICANN, is consistent with the SLA principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal, and is in a form that is ready for signature. After 30 November, 2015, the RIRs intend to publish the final mutually acceptable draft SLA as one of the key elements for implementation of the Internet Numbers Community proposal and transition of the IANA Numbering Services.

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Nurani Nimpuno 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear Colleagues, Please see the ICG announcement below. A major milestone in the IANA Stewardship transition process! Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability > Date: 29 oktober 2015 14:37:46 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > This announcement is now published - Congratulations and many thanks to the ICG for combining the proposal and leading the process! > > ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg… > > --- > Thursday, 29 October 2015 12:41 > IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf > > The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item. The names portion of the proposal is conditioned on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will secure confirmation from the CWG that its accountability requirements have been met. > > The ICG would like to thank all those who submitted public comments during the ICG’s public comment period. The ICG discussed this input and incorporated it into the current proposal as appropriate. As a result, matters relating to the dependency between the CWG and the CCWG, the Post-Transition IANA, the Root Zone Maintainer, the jurisdiction of ICANN, intellectual property related to IANA, and conformance with the NTIA criteria, among other matters, have been clarified. > > The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, ready for implementation, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or other remaining processes. Preparation for implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals is underway and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work. > --- > > > Izumi > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

2 1

ICANN 54: Addressing the Accountability Question
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ICANN 54 meeting, focusing on events relating to ICANN accountability and the IANA stewardship transition. You can find this report here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/icann-54-addre… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

1 0

NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability
by Nick Hyrka 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NRO STATEMENT ON IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION AND ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY The NRO takes this opportunity to comment on the current discussions of ICANN accountability, prior to the series of meetings coming up in Dublin, Ireland, during October 2015. The NRO has worked to ensure that to the extent possible, relationships between ICANN, RIRs and the global numbering communities are established in formal relationships that provide necessary definition and separation of responsibilities. The number community proposal for IANA oversight transition relies on these existing relationships, and builds on them to ensure that responsibilities, commitments and accountabilities are clear and robust in the post-transition environment. Regarding our expectations of ICANN accountability: in our relationships with ICANN, we have and will continue to rely upon binding agreements as the primarily mechanism for ICANN accountability to the numbers community. Regarding organisational models for ICANN accountability, the NRO notes that two legal memos [1][2] reached the conclusion that ICANN currently uses a “Designator” model for appointment of Directors, and that the designators currently have the power to remove the Directors that they appoint. We also note that both legal memos pointed out gaps in the current ICANN bylaws, and one of them was associated with concrete suggestions for bylaw changes to address the identified gaps [3]. The NRO believes that a clarification and formalisation of ICANN’s existing designator structure via the “Empowered SO/AC Designator” model (as referenced in the CCWG-Accountability “2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations” [4]) is the most straightforward approach to provide ICANN structural accountability to the community. We believe that the ability for designator organisations (SOs, ACs, and the NomCom) to remove and replace their designated Directors would provide a sufficient mechanism for enforcement of the desired community powers. However, we are able to support any accountability reform proposal which preserves and ensures ICANN’s ability to perform in accordance with our agreements, providing also that they are consistent with the successful IANA stewardship transition in the time available. The NRO is fully committed to the completion of the current IANA stewardship transition as a desirable and necessary evolution of the current ICANN and IANA models. Indeed, this is an overdue development that we have explicitly supported in several prior public statements. We therefore urge the global multistakeholder community to continue the work to converge on a mutually acceptable accountability reform proposal, which needs to achieve only the following: – Satisfying immediate concerns over ICANN accountability – Allowing the IANA transition to take place within the expected timeframe – Ensuring that ICANN evolution can and will continue in future. Finally we recognise the ongoing efforts by the CCWG and the ICANN Board to arrive to a successful conclusion of the work which is necessary for the IANA transition to occur. It is important that all of these efforts be fully respectful of the work of the community and that any discrepancies be dealt with in a true and amicable multistakeholder fashion. Alan Barrett CEO AFRINIC John Curran President and CEO ARIN Paul Wilson Director General APNIC Oscar Robles CEO LACNIC Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC References: [1] “Proposed Articles and Bylaw Amendments for ICANN”, Caplin & Drysdale, 31 Mar 2015. A memo discussing the existing designator model within ICANN, and discussing proposed amendments to the ICANN bylaws. Associated with proposed bylaw amendments [3]. Forwarded to the CCWG on 7 April 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [2] “Current Corporate Status of ICANN under California Law”, Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin, 11 Oct 2015. A memo concluding that ICANN currently functions under a designator model under California law, and identifying related gaps in the current ICANN bylaws. Forwarded to the CCWG on 12 Oct 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [3] “Proposed Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers re Designators”, Caplin & Drysdale, 31 Mar 2015. Associated with memo [1]. Forwarded to the CCWG on 7 April 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [4] “CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations”, 3 August 2015: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre…

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability
by Nick Hilliard 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

FYI. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:28:04 +0000 From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> https://www.nro.net/news/nro-statement-on-iana-stewardship-transition-and-i… FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Oct '15

08 Oct '15

Apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 8 oktober 2015 11:36:59 CEST > To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net, crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see below the agenda for the meeting today. > > You can find the Webex details from German's mail and anyone is welcome to join as an observer as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Action Items > a. Minutes from the last call > > 3. The questions from the ICG > > 4. IPR > a. Principles > b. IANAPLAN approach > c. Implementation time > > 5. General implementation plan > > 6. ICANN54 > > 7. Next Meetings > > 8. AOB > --- > > Izumi & Nurani > > On 2015/10/08 10:34, German Valdez wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> This is reminder of the scheduled CRISP Team call to be hold later today. >> >> Observers are welcome to join >> >> Below is webex details. >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO Secretariat >> >> >> >> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m31c9ec30fcbe5ab39d62d984dfbf2… >> Meeting number: 709 316 083 >> Meeting password: crisp >> >> >> JOIN BY PHONE >> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >> Access code: 709 316 083 >> >> Global call-in numbers: >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389533… >> >> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Hans Petter Holen 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

Dear RIPE community, As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement. In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.” https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Publi… The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be. I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community. It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list(a)ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September. If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind Regards, -- Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair email: hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

7 8

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 22 september 2015 13:17:59 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Please find below webex invitation for CRISP Team call on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… > Meeting number: 707 107 621 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 107 621 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… > > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Away from the distrubutionslist
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

Hello! Can you remove me from this distrubitionslist? Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik

1 0

Fwd: IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Sergey V. Gushkov 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

+1 I completely agree! 2015-09-21 16:21 GMT+03:00 Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com>: > > On 15 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> wrote: > > > I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council > representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, > non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff > member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. > > > > I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that > would avoid an extra election process. > > +1 > > Just do it! >

1 0

CCWG Second Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published CCWG-Accountability second Draft Report that can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 Comments can be sent through this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en The comment period closes on 12 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to provide you with a follow-up on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the first Draft Report (see communication from 15 May 2015 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-May/000753.html and ASO representatives submission to the CCWG on 12 June 2015 http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-June/0033…). We would also like to highlight the principle amendment introduced in the second Draft Report (section 7 below). 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.2 of the second Draft Report). With regards to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources, the description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs” (p 29, para 181). The description was provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the previous public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws. In the first Draft Report (p 25, para 89) the proposed amendment read as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” After the public consultation period ASO representative’s communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “With regards to ICANN’s core values in the Bylaws and in particular page 25, paragraph 89, the RIR community notes that the term "private sector led multistakeholder" (and similar terms) have been used by the NTIA in describing ICANN, but the RIRs describe their policy development processes using terms such as "inclusive, open, transparent and bottom-up". These different descriptions are compatible, provided it is understood that "private sector led" does not exclude government participation.“ In the second Draft Report the proposed amendment has been altered and now reads as follows (p.31 para 205): “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes, led by the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia that (i) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Do you have any comments with regards to this amended description? 3. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws As in the first Draft Report, the CCWG proposes in the second Draft Report the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 4 (pp 34-37) of the second Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of these provisions requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” In the first Draft Report the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. After the public consultation period, the ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The second Draft Report does not propose that Article XVIII be designated as Fundamental Bylaw, and provides the following justification: “Three considerations suggest that CCWG not propose Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: First, public comment on the first draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. Second, the Community Mechanism as Sole Member must approve with 2/3 vote any change to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which now state that ICANN is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation. Third, the Community Mechanism as Sole Member could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states ‘The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.’ “ Do you have any comments in relation to this? 4. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. After the public consultation period ASO representatives communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. An arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the global policy development process 2. An arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.” Accordingly, in the second Draft Report there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (p. 40 para 9): “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However in the section describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (p. 44 para 275): “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. 5. Powers In the second Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows: - Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 7.1 of the second Draft Report, pp 55-57) [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 7.2 of the Second Draft Report pp 57-58) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 4.5 of the second Draft Report p 37) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 7.3 of the second Draft Report pp 58-60) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 7.4 of the second Draft Report pp 60- 63) 6. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model The first Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, with the SO/ACs as the members (Membership Model). An alternative model was also investigated, whereby the SO/ACs would become designators (Designator Model). During the public consultation and thereafter, objections were expressed to both of these models. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the second Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Membership Model. This new model is understood to have the following benefits: - It provides the required legal enforceability that the Designator Model and Membership Model could not. - It removes the problematic requirement for some SOs and ACs that they become legal persons, whether to participate as a member in the Membership Model or to enforce rights in both the Membership Model and Designator Model. - It avoids the problem of different statutory rights between SOs and ACs that become members and SOs and ACs that were not members, associated with the Membership Model. - By allowing action only upon support of the community through the Community Mechanism, it limits the issues related to the statutory rights of members associated with the Membership Model, which would allow members to dissolve ICANN and bring derivative suits. The details of the Sole Membership Model can be found in section 6 (pp 47-53). The following aspects of the model are worthy to be highlighted: - SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - SO/ACs would participate directly in the Sole Member by providing instructions to the Sole Member to exercise the community powers. - In order to instruct the Sole Member, SO/ACs may choose to have voting rights. Voting rights will be allocated votes in the following way: o ASO, GNSO and ccNSO, 5 votes each o GAC and At-Large, 5 votes each o SSAC and RSSAC, 2 votes each Early indications are that the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO and ALAC would be the initial set of voting participants in the Sole Member (with remaining and future SOs and ACs able to opt-in to voting participation). There is no requirement or expectation that a participating SO or AC cast all its votes identically for a given issue (meaning all 5 in support or all 5 against). - For Director removal, Directors appointed by an SO could only be removed by that specific SO or community. The Sole Member would merely implement their decisions. Do you have any comments with regard to this model? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Serge Radovcic 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION COORDINATION GROUP (ICG) CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION PROPOSAL For the past 12 months, many in the Internet community have worked hard to formulate a plan for the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions away from the U.S. Government and into the hands of the broader Internet community. Working with and on behalf of the Internet Number Community, the CRISP Team built a plan for the IANA numbering functions, and this now forms part of the transition plan developed by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group for all of the IANA functions. We are now very close to the end of this long and complex process, and the Number Community has devoted many hours to meetings and discussions around the plan. At this stage of the process, to ensure the success of the transition, it is vital that the global Internet community expresses its support for the ICG proposal. Therefore, we encourage members of the RIR communities to review the ICG’s draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and register their support or any concerns they may have: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop… Comments can be submitted via an online form or by emailing <public-comments(a)ianacg.org> until 8 September 2015 at 23:59 (UTC). Please note that all questions on the online form about the proposal are optional. The form can be accessed at: https://comments.ianacg.org/form If you agree with the key priorities in the Number Community’s contribution to the proposal – which are focused on ensuring stability, security, reliability, quality of service and community empowerment – please submit your statement of support today! Your comment could be as simple as this: I, as a member of the Number Community, am in favour of the ICG proposal on the IANA stewardship transition. If for any reason you do not agree with the draft proposal, it is essential that you take the time to comment and describe your viewpoint and underlying reasoning. For more information, please review the CRISP Team’s own analysis, which shows how the ICG proposal reflects and supports the CRISP proposal, and the wishes of the global Number Community. It is available here: https://www.nro.net/crisp-response-icg-proposal

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

Dear Colleagues, As you know, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has combined all proposals from the three operational communities and published a draft proposal. We are now in the public comment period where the ICG is asking for feedback on the proposal. I would like to encourage you all to submit your comments to the ICG, as described below. It it essential for the success of this transition, that it can show sufficient support from the Internet community. Please not that there is no obligation to respond to all the questions from the ICG, and also that a simple general expression of support is also helpful. Please feel free to use the attached CRISP Team response to the combined proposal as a reference in considering your comments. Kind regards, Nurani Vice-chair, CRISP ———————————— http://nro.net/crisp-team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response > Date: 27 augusti 2015 01:30:06 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > We would like to share the attached CRISP Team response to the draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment. > > IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > As described in the call for Public Comment by the ICG: > > "It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal’s conformance with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be submitted to NTIA. > Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal." > > You can contribute to the process in three ways as described below. > > 1. Submit your own comment to the ICG > We strongly encourage you to submit your comment to the ICG. > This helps the ICG to build public record that the combined proposal has support of the broad community. > > - It is not a requirement to respond to all questions from the ICG. > Submission of comments expressing a general support for the proposal itself would be helpful enough, without responding to specific aspects of the proposal. > - Please feel free to use the CRISP Team response as a reference, in considering contents for your own submission. > Words in bold letters cover a general observation which could be applicable to anyone in the Number Community. > Details specific to the CRISP Team are in italics. > > Deadline of the submission: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC > - You can submit your comment using the online form or by e-mail to <public-comments(a)ianacg.org>. > For details see: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > 2. Help spread the word > Encourage others to submit comments to the ICG. > > 3. Express support to the CRISP Team response to the ICG > Support expressed by e-mail to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> before 7 September 2015 23:59 UTC will be recorded as the level of support from the Number Community to the CRISP Team response. > We will share this in our response to the ICG, but will not share the names of individuals who expressed support. We therefore encourage you to submit your own comment to the ICG in addition, as described in 1. > > > We are looking forward to your contributions in this important phase of the process, as an opportunity to express support towards the transition which will be lead to bottom-up, community based oversight mechanism for the IANA functions. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISP Team > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

fyi. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC > Date: 24 augusti 2015 14:52:50 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues > > Please find below agenda and webex information for next CRISP Team teleconference. > > Draft Agenda > > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Meeting Notes > b. Update on communications plan > d. Update on IPR status > d. Update on CRISP Comment to the ICG > > 3. SLA ver.2 > > 4. AOB > --- > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… > Meeting number: 707 107 621 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 107 621 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0