IANAxfer December 2015

ianaxfer@apnic.net

1 participants
4 discussions

Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Statement about the CCWG timeline
by Izumi Okutani 22 Dec '15

22 Dec '15

FYI. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Statement about the CCWG timeline Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:54:11 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: Bijal Sanghani <bijal(a)euro-ix.net> CC: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> Thank you Bijal for your supportive comment. It's always encouraging to see an explicit support from our community member. The CRISP comment is posted on the CCWG list. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/… Thank you all and happy holidays season! Izumi On 2015/12/21 21:42, Bijal Sanghani wrote: > Dear Izumi, CRISP team, > >> On 19 Dec 2015, at 00:00, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> There are discussions in the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability whether to extending its timeline. >> >> While it is not in the charter of the CRISP Team to comment on the ICANN Accountability related issues, the timeline of the CCWG to submit its proposal to the NTIA affects the IANA Stewardship transition process, since the two proposals are requested to be submitted to the NTIA at the same time. >> >> This is a draft of a statement from the CRISP Team which we plan to share with the CCWG. We do not intend to go into the details of the CCWG proposal, as this is not within the scope of our activity. >> >> If you observe : >> >> - Any point which you see as not consistent with the number community position, and/or >> - Any concerns about the CRISP Team making such statement on the CCWG timeline >> >> please express it on this mailing list before :Monday 21st Dec UTC23:59. > > I support the statement, thanks again for your work. > > best regards, > > Bijal > >> >> >> --- >> Dear CCWG, >> >> >> The CRISP Team would like to express our comment on the discussions on the CCWG regarding the timelines, in incorporating comment from the ICANN Board: >> >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/… >> >> As it has been well stated by some CCWG members, the CCWG timeline does not only affect the names community but has wider implications to the IANA Stewardship transition process and its timelines. >> >> The CRISP Team would like to emphasise our strong concerns on extension of the CCWG timeline if it will compromise the NTIA timelines on the IANA stewardship transition. >> >> We support the feedback of the ASO discussions, shared on the CCWG list, as a helpful way forward : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/… >> >> We thank the CCWG in considering the timelines with acknowledgement of the needs of the other operational communities. >> >> We observe tremendous efforts have been made by the CCWG in addressing the challenges which arise through the process and finding a way forward, without affecting the transition timelines. >> Now that is is very close to the end of the process in finalising its proposal, we trust the CCWG complete its work, maintaining to keep in line with overall the transition timelines. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Izumi Okutani >> on behalf of the CRISP Team >> --- >> >> >> Izumi Okutani >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Statement about the CCWG timeline
by Izumi Okutani 19 Dec '15

19 Dec '15

FYI. I welcome comments on the global ianaxfer list <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, if you have any concerns. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Statement about the CCWG timeline Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:00:02 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> Dear Colleagues, There are discussions in the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability whether to extending its timeline. While it is not in the charter of the CRISP Team to comment on the ICANN Accountability related issues, the timeline of the CCWG to submit its proposal to the NTIA affects the IANA Stewardship transition process, since the two proposals are requested to be submitted to the NTIA at the same time. This is a draft of a statement from the CRISP Team which we plan to share with the CCWG. We do not intend to go into the details of the CCWG proposal, as this is not within the scope of our activity. If you observe : - Any point which you see as not consistent with the number community position, and/or - Any concerns about the CRISP Team making such statement on the CCWG timeline please express it on this mailing list before :Monday 21st Dec UTC23:59. --- Dear CCWG, The CRISP Team would like to express our comment on the discussions on the CCWG regarding the timelines, in incorporating comment from the ICANN Board: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/… As it has been well stated by some CCWG members, the CCWG timeline does not only affect the names community but has wider implications to the IANA Stewardship transition process and its timelines. The CRISP Team would like to emphasise our strong concerns on extension of the CCWG timeline if it will compromise the NTIA timelines on the IANA stewardship transition. We support the feedback of the ASO discussions, shared on the CCWG list, as a helpful way forward : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/… We thank the CCWG in considering the timelines with acknowledgement of the needs of the other operational communities. We observe tremendous efforts have been made by the CCWG in addressing the challenges which arise through the process and finding a way forward, without affecting the transition timelines. Now that is is very close to the end of the process in finalising its proposal, we trust the CCWG complete its work, maintaining to keep in line with overall the transition timelines. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team --- Izumi Okutani _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Izumi Okutani 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. We would like to highlight of 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 14 September 2015: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2015/09/msg00006.ht…). As mentioned in the APNIC Podcast "CCWG -Accountability release 3rd draft proposal", the NRO is also be reviewing the proposal and make comment on the issues relevant to the numbers community. http://blog.apnic.net/2015/12/10/podcast-ccwg-accountability-release-3rd-dr… --- 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, Izumi Okutani on behalf of the ASO liaisons to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal Comment until 21 Dec]
by Izumi Okutani 01 Dec '15

01 Dec '15

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal Comment until 21 Dec] Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> FYI. The 3rd version of the proposal on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is now published for comments, until 21 Dec. CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… It is expected that ASO provides feedback on issues which needs to comment from its perspective as needed. At the same time, CCWG invites anyone not involved with a Chartering Organization(ASO) to comment on the proposal and webinars are open for anyone: 2 December from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here) 2 December from 20:00 – 21:30 UTC (time zone converter here) >From the CRISP perspective, the contents the accountability proposal do not affect the number community proposal. However, the CRISP Team is watching with interests on the timelines to finalize the ICANN Accountability proposal. The two proposal must be submitted to the NTIA at the same time (the IANA Stewardship transition proposal & ICANN Accountability proposal), and now waiting for the proposal on ICANN Accountability to be finalised. Izumi _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

IANAxfer December 2015