AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
n/aResponse to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship)ADOPTED 15Y, 0N, 0AbstainAlan Greenberg25.06.201525.06.2015ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session 1 - Buenos Aires - 2015.06.25  ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session 1 - Buenos Aires - 2015.06.2525.06.2015

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad@icann.org

n/a

 

Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship)

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

ALAC Motion to adopt the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship)

 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

ALAC Motion to adopt the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship)

Whereas; 

  1. The ALAC co-chartered the Cross Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship); 
  2. The ALAC, with the support of its Members and Participants on the CWG-Stewardship as well as other interested parties, has duly considered the CWG Stewardship Final Proposal dated 11 June 2015; 
  3. The Final Proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision and re-approval by the ALAC 

Resolved; 

  1. The ALAC approves the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and its submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. 
  2. The ALAC wishes to record the following comments:
    1. The selection of the two PTI Board members by the Nominating Committee or similar mechanism should attempt to address geographic diversity without sacrificing competence. 
    2. The success of PTI will be contingent on ICANN ensuring adequate operational and R&D funding as well as other resources. 
  3. The ALAC reaffirms its commitment to continue to support the CWG-Stewardship in any and all follow-on activities related to the submission of this report. 

The ALAC wishes to express its sincere appreciation of the diligent and productive work performed by the CWG-Stewardship, its Co-Chairs, its Members and Participants. 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Motion to adopt the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) 

Whereas;

  1. The ALAC co-chartered the Cross Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship);
  2. The ALAC, with the support of its Members and Participants on the CWG-Stewardship as well as other interested parties, has duly considered the CWG Stewardship Final Proposal dated 11 June 2015;
  3. The Final Proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision and re-approval by the ALAC

Resolved;

  1. The ALAC approves the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and its submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group.
  2. The ALAC wishes to record the following comments:
    1. The selection of the two PTI Board members by the Nominating Committee or similar mechanism should attempt to address geographic diversity without sacrificing competence.
    2. The success of PTI will be contingent on ICANN ensuring adequate operational and R&D funding as well as other resources.
    3. [The ALAC believes that there is no need to include a CSC liaison in the composition of the IANA Function Review Team.]
    4. [The ALAC believes that no member of an IANA Function Review Team shall be allowed to be a member of a Separation Cross Community Working Group created as a result of the Review Team’s recommendation.]
  3. The ALAC reaffirms its commitment to continue to support the CWG-Stewardship in any and all follow-on activities related to the submission of this report.
  4. The ALAC welcomes and will consider invitation to the ALAC to participate in the following proposed post-transition IANA structures:
    1. IANA Functions Review Team;
    2. Customer Standing Committee;
    3. Separation Process Working Group.
  5. The ALAC wishes to express its sincere appreciation of the diligent and productive work performed by the CWG-Stewardship, its Co-Chairs, its Members and Participants.

 

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Alan Greenberg

    I have reviewed the report against the comments made by the ALAC on the draft proposal.

    In my mind, this Proposal warrants serious consideration by the ALAC, and I suspect ratification.

    Our largest problem with the Draft Proposal was that the GNSO and ccNSO were the bodies that both had to approve a CSC request to initiate a Special IANA Review (SIFR). We had a number of reasons, but the largest was that the GNSO was not fully representative of the non-ccTLD world. Specifically, the ALAC, the GAC, the SSAC, the RSSAC and others who have an interest in the outcome are not members of the GNSO. The final proposal does not alter the formal process, but now does require that the GNSO initiate meaningful consultation with other AC/SOs. This is not 100% satisfactory, but given that:

    • it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen;
    • if the ccNSO and gNSO *BOTH* think there is a problem, there likely *IS* a problem;
    • we would be represented on the SIFR;

    I think that this is a reasonable compromise. It does simplify things in that we are not invoking yet another body in the decision, although the GNSO does have some thinking to do about how it would make such a decision if this ever happens.

    The other point we raised was that we (and other bodies with a single IFR representative) should be allowed alternates to ensure that we can always participate fully. Given that the AoC reviews have been pretty flexible on this, I do not think that the omission at this stage is a show stopper.

    At the time of the closure, we had not come to closure on the composition of the PTI Board. We were definite in it not being controlled by registries. The proposal calls for two ICANN employees who have specific responsibilities in the area now to sit on the Board, the Senior IANA administrator, and two independent Directors named by the NomCom or a similar body. This Board is ultimately controlled by ICANN, so it does not need accountability measures of its own, three of the members are people who will implicitly have skills needed to resolve problems should they arise, and there is a component of external and community input. I find this quite acceptable.

     

  2. Holly Raiche

    I am staggered by the amount of time and thought that has gone into this - and agree with Alan's comments.  My only question is when is ratification required and what are its implications?  The question because discussions in BA may throw up issues we haven't spotted, or produce statements that may challenge what has been agreed in subtle ways.  That said, please proceed on the basis of the document (taking into account Alan's comments)

    1. Alan Greenberg

      As stated in my cover message to the ALAC and the IANA-Issues list, we are requested to ratify by Thursday, June 25th.

      If we choose not to do so, that would require the CWG to further review the work and will certainly delay the submission to the ICG and further impact the possibility of transition.

      Alternately, we could perhaps ratify with a minority statement.

      I am hoping that people who have been involved have already raised issues that are critical to them, and at this stage, I am not aware of any show-stoppers. But of course, my awareness or assessment of them may not correspond to the views of others.

      If anyone knows of possible problems, I hope there will not wait for BA to raise them!

      On a personal note, given how far we have come and how close this proposal is to what the ALAC fought for (with very few allies for a long time), I would find it sad if we were the only ones to delay it at this stage.