IANAxfer September 2015

ianaxfer@apnic.net

3 participants
5 discussions

Fwd: Agenda for the coming CRISP Meeting Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Izumi Okutani 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

FYI. Apologies for the late notice! Izumi -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Agenda for the coming CRISP Meeting Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:44:34 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net Colleagues, Please see below agenda for the coming CRISP call, 24th Sep 2015 at 13:00 UTC. Anyone is welcome to join as observers as usual. --- 1. Agenda Review 2. Action Items a. Minutes from the last call b. IPR Principles 3. Status on IPR a. Status of other operational communities b. Feedback on IPR principles 4. The ICG Status a. Current status and observation b. Request for action items and its status for the number community proposal 5. GAO report a. Observation b. Any revision needed on the number community part (if any) 6. Communication on the number community proposal/implementation a. For the Congress Hearing b. ICANN54 7. Next Meetings 9. AOB --- Izumi On 2015/09/22 20:17, German Valdez wrote: > 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

CCWG ICANN Accountabilitysecond draft report -- numbers related analysis [9/12 comment deadline]
by Izumi Okutani 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, It was nice to see some of you at APNIC40. Hope you make a safe trip home. 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 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, Izumi Okutani ASO representative for ICANN Accoutability CCWG

2 2

IANA Stewardship Transition Session @APNIC40 (8th Sep 16:00 UTC+7)
by Izumi Okutani 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Dear Collegues, There will be IANA Stewardship Transition Session @APNIC40 on 8th Sep 16:00 Jakarta time (UTC+7). https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#sessions/ianatransition Remote participation is available for those who cannot be in Jakarta physically. There is a blog post from Paul Wilson for some background information. The IANA Stewardship Transition ? what you need to know https://blog.apnic.net/2015/09/04/the-iana-stewardship-transition-what-you-… Looking forward to your participation at the session! Izumi Okutani

1 0

Fwd: Call for Community Support of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Paul Wilson 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Forwarded message: > From: Secretariat <Secretariat(a)apnic.net> > To: apnic-announce(a)lists.apnic.net > Subject: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Call for Community Support of > the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal > Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:33:30 +0700 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Call for Community Support of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Greetings from APNIC 40 in Jakarta! > > As you probably know, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination > Group > (ICG) is in the last stages of finishing a proposal that will be sent > soon to the United States government. This proposal contains our own > numbering community proposal, developed through the CRISP team. > > The purpose of this message is to encourage members of the APNIC > community to review the ICG draft proposal and register their support > or > any concerns. This has to be done soon, before 8 September 2015 at > 23:59 (UTC). > > You can submit a comment directly to the ICG via the online form we > developed here: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/support > > Or you can email these comments to the ICG directly: > > public-comments(a)ianacg.org > > A simple blog post that I wrote summarizing the ICG process is > available > here: > > https://www.apnic.net/IANA-need-to-know > > The full IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is available to review > here: > > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship > transition-proposal-EN.pdf > > Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this process. > > Best wishes, > > > Paul Wilson > Director General > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > APNIC Secretariat > secretariat(a)apnic.net > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: 61 7 3858 > 3100 > PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: 61 7 3858 > 3199 > 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD > http://www.apnic.net > ________________________________________________________________________ > >

1 0

Fwd: CRISP Team comment on the 2nd draft of the SLA
by Izumi Okutani 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

FYI for colleagues in the APNIC region. Izumi -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: CRISP Team comment on the 2nd draft of the SLA Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 08:50:41 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> Dear NRO, The CRISP Team appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the 2nd draft of the SLA for the IANA Numbering Services. We believe the process of calling for comment for the 2nd draft, and a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the legal team responses demonstrates transparency in the process of preparing implementation of the proposal. We thank the RIR legal team and NRO EC for taking these steps. In reviewing the 2nd version of the SLA from the perspectives described below, the CRISP Team observe that the draft SLA is consistent with the number community proposal. - CRISP Team comment for SLA ver.1 are adequately addressed - No consistencies with the number community proposal over additional edits for SLA ver.2 Please see the attached document for details of the observation by the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of the SLA. In terms of the process, we agree with the future steps described in the draft SLA as below: "All comments received by the deadline will be processed by the legal team of the RIRs and, as appropriate, included in a further and final draft of the SLA which will be presented to ICANN as the proposed final SLA. It is hoped that this document will be agreed by ICANN without further changes." Further, the CRISP Team expects the final SLA to remain consistent with the number community proposal, given consultation process has taken place, including feedback from the ICANN Board. The CRISP Team has confidence that the NRO maintains and continues the process to be accountable to the number community throughout the implementation, and expects the NRO to have clarity in the process for the number community, beyond negotiation with ICANN. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno Chair and Vice Chair, the CRISP Team

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

IANAxfer September 2015