Meeting #13 CWG RFP3 (30 January)

Notes 

Roll Call

Seun Audio only

1. IAP discussion

• Basic agreements section: First section document as presented
• Note: delegation - re-delegation ccTLD sensitive area. Specifics are outside scope of this WG. Agreed by ccTLD members and participants 
  on the CWG
• Martin Boyle (MB): How could an IAP without proper understanding of national situation, could make a sound decision. Brings in third party. 
  Important part is bringing people together, to support the final outcome of the process.
• If no substantial support for steps in the process, could be 
  -> IAP role: was process followed and was documentation available

• Paul Kane: a gTLD has a contract, appeal process may be needed, to check whether contract has been applied properly.
• For ccTLD this is different: diverse of community, no relation with ICANN. 
• GS, Appealing decision of court in a jurisdictions is out of scope of IAP. 
• PK: Appeal process may make process complicated
• Alan Greenberg: ccTLDs present at the meeting suggested IAP.    Topic IAP in delegation and re-delegation of ccTLD matters, not to be 
  discussed in this group.
• Staffan Jonson: Diversity of ccTLDs , brings  complexity. IANA Function operator should not get involved in national disputes
• MB: Could see a role for IAP, but not as evolved in the discussion. This role to be limited to process issues
• Other case where Registry makes a mistake, is potentially re-delegated may want to appeal 
• Jonathan Robinson: Keep trail simple an delimited to IANA Function, where after the CCWG may step in.

Request/Action: ccTLD members and participants CWG to come up with a consistent position on IAP, re it scope, mandate, Grounds for Appeal 

 

GNSO/gTLD realted IAP

Should actual decision be under IAP, or limited to question that process is followed

AG: Remit of CWG should point to applicable approved policies.  Re-delegation done under contract. Contracts include an arbitration clause.  

More important to focus on first point

AG: Review process of process is around Board decisions. Re-delegation gTLD ruled by contract.  Main point: If IAP was introduced mistakenly, 

allow it to be withdrawn. 

 

Suggestion GS: further need, scope of IAP among gTLD related part of CWG, in particular Grounds for appeal 

Section Key Issues and Open Questions

No Comments on list of issues. Questions are re-arranging issues discussed previous section

Ground for Appeal

No Comments on points raised in paper

Standing: who can appeal

Jonathan Robinson: survey result , reflect that survey was done in a vacuum. The document is more fleshed out

Binding Nature of decision

Seems strongly supported according to survey

Structure and Process

Greg Shatan: Setting up substantive rules is difficult (based on experience new gTLD process). Quality of substantive rules, determines consistency of outcome.

Existence of IAP

No comments

 

2. Alternative "external Trust" Model

Text: 

"Could, or should, Contract Co. take the form of a Trust established under American law, registered with a state court (e.g., California or New York) [which ensures that the terms of the Trust will at all times in the future be met, see:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1418851.html ], the Trust to have a Board of Trustees (incorporated in the same state the Trust is registered), selected from, and representing, the global multistakeholder community, and the Trust receiving an assignment and/or conveyance from the US government, Department of Commerce (NTIA), of all the US government's rights and duties included within its Stewardship role over the Internet and DNS, under existing contracts with ICANN, and Versign, or otherwise. Further, that the Trust have as its primary purpose and duty, to ensure the continuous operation of a free, open, secure, and stable global internet DNS, including the Internet Root Zone, by the selection of an IANA functions operator (presently ICANN), and Internet Root Zone maintainer (presently Verisign), each for a term of years (subject to termination for cause), and such other terms, conditions, and covenants necessary or convenient (such as limitation of registration/renewal fees charged by a market-dominant gTLD registry operator), in order to carry out the purpose of the Trust and the duty of the Trustees thereof to act at all times in the wider public interest of the global multistakeholder community."

 

• GS: Presentation Alternative John Poole document
• GS Summary: replacement of Contract Co  by 'Trust". Board of Trustee  <- MRT
• AG: Do not understand  concept of incorporating Board of Trustees.
• John Poole: no need to be incorporated, but may want to in order to avoid personal liabilities of Board of Trustee members.  Reference to court case 
• (America's Cup) , illuminating in international context. It is a viable option. 
• John Poole , viewpoint registrant: interpretation of NTIA announcement. 1. historic stewards role, external counter part of ICANN, external role RZM,  
  authorization. NTIA question, come up with proposal to replace NTIA role
• Internal solution will abolish role of NTIA
• Contract Co. will expand role
• Look at how role of NTIA can be replaced.

Stress Test: what is worst scenario if take away external accountability.

What will happen if ICANN becomes insolvent as a result of court judgement?

Avri Doria: Notion of association could be incorporated. The delegates could be on the Board of Trustee. 

Notion of association being incorporated. Appreciation of model

AG: Rules around Trust are enforceable by court. Does not understand difference between "internal" and external" trust

GS: "external trust": MS will contract with ICANN to perform IANA Function

"internal" trust , no contract in place

AG: in Auda proposal ( internal trust). Guardian , same role as "board of trustee" in external trust model -> MRT

John Poole: CSC, MRT, IAP all could be moved  internal, or external What is only replaced is role of NTIA, through external trust. Relationships 

do not change, Terms of Trust rule the board of trustees and relation ruled through the trust, under jurisdiction of state trust is set-up.

 

Final remarks: large parallel between MRT and Board of Trustees (external).

Next call: RFP 3 21.00 UTC  Monday 02 Feb (Final call before Singapore)

GS: suggestions how to use this call?

Action Items

Request/Action: ccTLD members and participants CWG to come up with a consistent position on IAP, re it scope, mandate, Grounds for Appeal 

 

Transcript

Transcript RFP 3 30 Jan.doc

Transcript RFP 3 30 Jan.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7xegeicez5/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rfp3-30jan15-en.mp3

 

Documents Presented

IAP Structural and Functional Analysis.pdf

Alternative_JohnPoole.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:  Good Day and Welcome to the RFP3 call on January 30 at 14:00 UTC.

  Robert Guerra:hello all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hi

  Staffan:Hello All

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Hi all

  Gary Hunt UK Govt.:Good day everyone!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Please mute if you are not speaking

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Good morning, afternoon and evening.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Still waiting for a dial-in....

  Staffan:Do people get access via dial-in? unusually long waiting today...

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Now on to the second song of the wait.

  Mary Uduma:Good day All

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):"momentarily" :-(

  Alan Greenberg:5 minutes now. Do not recall it ever being that long.

  Grace Abuhamad:Yes, we are noting this for Verizon. Apologies.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Sendomg rabbits to Verizon.

  Staffan:Ah

  Staffan:in at last

  Alan Greenberg:In

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):*sending*

  Steve Crocker:I'm finally in

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):getting in, too

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):I am in the audi bridge finally

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:rubbish music!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Kenny G, I believe.  At least for me.  Christmas songs, still.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):As a saxophone player, don't  get me started on Kenny G....

  Grace Abuhamad:I've put the document up just so that you can enjoy some extra reading time :)

  Brenda Brewer:Seun Ojedeji is on audio only

  Steve Crocker:Delegation and redelegation decisions are outside of the IANA function precisely becasue they are sensitive.

  Paul Kane:Agree - with Steve. Only a FEW ccTLDs fall within ICANN's perview.

  Staffan:Agree STeve and Paul

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Agree Bernie

  Steve Crocker:It's indeed vital there be reliable, trasnparent processes for making the delegation and redelegation decisions, and there needs to a proper

venue for these decisions, but it's fundamental that these are not within the scope of the IANA function.  The IANA function is to publish informaton that has been created/decided elsewhere.

  Paul Kane:Ill bne back

  Steve Crocker:Thus, if delegations and redelegations do not fall within IANA, it might be helpful to find other examples of IANA functions that might lead to an appeal and a possible need for the IAP.

  Paul Kane:No - sorry - working it

  Grace Abuhamad:@Paul would you like a dial out?

  Staffan:According to hearsay, only about 7 cc:s are contracted to ICANN. So lesson learned is rather the variety of terms to different TLD:s, which may by itself consume a lot of legal and administrative resources.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Secondguessing Paul's remark, only the ccTLDs which have a contract with ICANN fal under ICANN's perview

  Avri Doria:should we be using a binding arbitration model instead of an appeals model?

  Paul Kane:I'm here now

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Such a foru=m should be before the decision hits "the IANA function'

  Robert Guerra:lost sund

  Staffan:IAP has a limited role in cc land, since it probably never can challenge national law (hard law). However, an independent panel can ensure other values. We have e.g. cc:s wanting protection from own governments (soft law), which may be very small units (hence little resources).

  Staffan:So cc have no, or little formal relation to ICANN. Instead CC rely on the support of the local internet community (LIC). However vague this term might be, support from LIC is important in all forms of redelegation. This is e.g. ensured by transparent processes,  etc.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@avri - I'm not convinced

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 PK

  Mary Uduma:+1 Paul Kane

  Steve Crocker:A key source of confusion in this discussion is the distincton between the IANA function and the IANA contract.  The IANA contract is a barnacle encrusted vehicle that includes stuff beyond the IANA function.  For those who have not been involved in the actual facts and are responding only to the declaration by NTIA that they are exiting from the relationship, it's entirely natural to assume that the IANA contract and the IANA function are the same.

  Steve Crocker:After making the distinction between the IANA function and the IANA contract, the question that needs attention is how to handle the elements in the contract that are not part of the IANA function.  This is important but hasn't gotten any direct attention.

  Mary Uduma:The  appeal process that of interest to the cc is on  delegation and reddelagation process delays, from experience this process can go as far as 2+ years. Where can unfairly treated cc seek for redress?

  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, you are no doubt correct on the difference between the IANA Function and IANA Contract, but I thought we were charged by the ICG with replacing the IANA contract.

  Paul Kane:Our emphasis should be on stability of operation and quality of service to Registrants.  The current direction of the IAP is a power game - and not wanted/needed for ccTLDs as ICANN has no role over the majority of ccTLDs.  That said gTLDs may need to have an IAP .

  Steve Crocker:@Alan, yes, you are spot on.  There does indeed need to be clarity and evolution of the process for making delegations and redelegations.  It's just not part of the IANA function.  I guess the simple thing to do is divide this work into two tracks, one for the IANA functions and one for the other functions.

  Steve Crocker:None of the propsoed mechanisms -- Contract Co, MRT, CSC, etc. -- touch the delegation or redelegation processes.  Any complaints, errors, etc. in the area of delegations and redelegations should not be blamed or attributed to IANA as long as IANA has properly executed instructions it receives from the proper body.

  Avri Doria:i am confused as to how the Accountabilty  CCWG solution for appeal serve an external Stewarship model.

  Alan Greenberg:@Steve, but surely we need to put in place a rule.process telling IANA wWHO they should be listening to to make changes in the root.

  Alan Greenberg:that is rule or process

  Brenden Kuerbis:> "as long as IANA has properly executed instructions it receives from the proper body." Agree with that, but the question is what if it doesn't? What is the recoourse of the operator?

  Steve Crocker:Well, yes, a gTLD operator should be able to appeal delegation and redelegation decisions, but, again, this would be outside of the IANA function.  So, if you're proposing an appeals mechanism, you're proposing something that affects the decisions made by ICANN in its role in letting contracts with gTLD operators.  These deicsions are not only outside of the IANA function, I believe they are also outside of the "IANA contract" but I confess I'm not 100% conversant with all of the clauses in the contract.  In any case, as a matter of practice, the GNSO and the Global Domains Division of ICANN are the relevant bodies related to gTLDs.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Woouldn't they appeal within the icann appeals process?

  Steve Crocker:@Martin, exactly.  And if the current set of appeals processes aren't sufficient, there's room within the CCWG to recommend more or different.

  Paul Kane:Alan - those with contracts the contracts will say who is the authority - I assume ICANN. has the authority to reassign gTLDs  For ccTLDs the authority is not ICANN. 

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:but that is the thing that would need to be fixed, n'est-ce pas?

  Paul Kane:Agree Martin B

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Alan +1

  Alan Greenberg:@Paul, I understand all that. And the ccNSO has been been working on the Framework of Interpretation for a long time now. I di not see why we are replaying that discussion here.

  Alan Greenberg:Or replaying whether the ccNSO has jurisdiction to even discuss the FoI.

  Paul Kane:An IAP may be needed if ICANN tries to asert authority over ccTLDs - but I don't think that ICANN plans to seek authority over ccTLDs.  Bottom line is theis process needds to be kept simple, efficient and operational

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:shouldn't that be fought outside?  As it was when they tried last time?

  Avri Doria:Paul, wouldm't that be an ICANN appeal, not an IANA appeal?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:It would be an additional criterion that is not theirs to make

  Paul Kane:If IANA has done somethign wrong then the incorrect change needs to be reversed.

  Paul Kane:in real time!

  Avri Doria:so it would be an appeal on IANA having listened to the wrong authority?

  Paul Kane:Good point Avri

  Paul Kane: Any challenge needs to happen BEFORE IANA makes the change

  Paul Kane:unless IANA gets it wrong

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:does the appeals process help reduce the risk of litigation on iana's work?

  Steve Crocker:It sounds like you're headed toward creating an appeals process that wil come into play for both IANA and non-IANA decisions.  It will be helpful to make it clear that this appeals panel is handling both matters.  It should not be possible for someone to claim the IANA process was faulty if the underlying issue is IANA properly implemented an instruction from the proper body but the litigant is unhappy about the decision that body made.

  Christopher:How does one limit the scope for appeals to IANA without undermining the responsibility of ICANN to deliver policy and the National authoarities (cctld case) to make determinations?

  Christopher:Many of us have put the whole survey question on hold, because of the biases in the questions.

  Steve Crocker:@Christopher: There should definitely be appropriate paths for reviewing, challenging, etc. delegation and redelegation decisions.  The critical point is that these are not IANA issues and should not be framed in terms of appealing IANA decisions or IANA actions.

  Christopher:Out of scope CW

  Steve Crocker:It's ok for the CWG to consider this as long as its framed as a separate matter.

  Paul Kane:Interesting question - choice of forum..... hmmmm

  Paul Kane:Need to consult with the community

  Staffan:I guess GAC will take the issue back for us

  Steve Crocker:And, of course, appeals about decisions within other parts of ICANN seems to tread rather directly into the scope of the CCWG.

  Paul Kane:As part of doing our job I think ALL options should be considered so we can have a learned debate.  If a Trust is a viable option, yes it needs to be considered

  Avri Doria:agreed Paul.  and trusts are a basic alternative of both the interenal and external models

  Avri Doria:it could be incorproated as an association.

  Christopher:A Trust? It seems to me that the proposal clones what we already have with the ICANN Board itself. All the accountability issues relating to ICANN would become repeated in the event of a separate "Trust". CW

  Avri Doria:and the members could be delgated from ACSO and others.

  Christopher:Who is speaking?

  Avri Doria:John Poole

  Christopher:Have to leave the call for a prior appointment. May join again later CW

  Alan Greenberg:gTLD registry agreements are *WAY* out of our scope.

  Alan Greenberg:ISOC has a Board of Trustees.

  Avri Doria:/t/he difference in the incorproated Board of Trustees

  Robert Guerra:in the absense of legal opinion, we are blind. Suggest we wait for their comments and move on to other aspects.

  Avri Doria:Alan, the models are probably close to isomorphic, except for who controls the contract.

  Avri Doria:if we went for this sort of model I would be in favor of the MRT being repaced by the Board of Trusttess and the CSC hanging under that Board.

  Staffan:Thank You all!

  Avri Doria:bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Until later all.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):By all.

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Bye and thanks

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IAP):Goodbye all, and thank you.

  Gary Hunt UK Govt.:Good bye all and have a great weekend!