Verisign's Keith Drazek: GNSO, IANA, ICANN, WHOIS, New gTLDs (videos)

Video above: Verisign's Keith Drazek reflects on his forthcoming term on the GNSO Council, his experience within ICANN including his previous experience on the ccNSO Council, as well as WHOIS policy, and the new gTLDs Reviews. (source: ICANN; Published on Oct 30, 2015)

Video below: Keith Drazek discusses his representation of the gTLD Registries on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014. Topics mentioned include Verisign's Role as Root Zone Maintainer as well as Registry operator for .COM and .NET. (source: ICANN; Published on Jul 25, 2014)



Keith Drazek is Vice President of Public Policy and Government Relations at Verisign, Inc., operator of the .COM and .NET domain name registries, Internet Root Zone Maintainer pursuant to an agreement with the US Department of Commerce (NTIA), as well as operator of  two of the world's 13 Internet root servers. Keith has been active in the ICANN community for more than a decade, including his most recent role as Chair of ICANN’s GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group. Prior to joining Verisign in 2010, he worked for ten years at the U.S. Department of State, and ten years in the domain name industry - 2 years at a registrar and 8 years at a registry (Neustar). His experience in the domain name industry includes business development, channel management, government relations, external affairs, and Internet policy development. He studied International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, DC. (primary source: ianacg.org)

See also on Domain Mondo: Verisign, ICANN, Internet Root Zone, Risk Factors to the Root Domain Oct 26, 2015


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Stewardship Transition, ICG Meeting, Sept 18-19, in LA & Online

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will be holding its next face-to-face meeting on Friday, 18 September and Saturday, 19 September from 09:00 – 17:00 PDT in Los Angeles. Draft agenda is below.

According to ICANN, observers are welcome to attend the session in-person. Information on remote participation and additional language streams:

Online Virtual Meeting Room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/

Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/
AR – Conference ID: 82855066
EN – Conference ID: 9295725
ES – Conference ID: 68385764
FR – Conference ID: 75929475
PT – Conference ID: 759752
RU – Conference ID: 345720
ZH – Conference ID: 825702

• ICG | IANA Stewardship Transition website: https://www.ianacg.org.
• IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
• Public Comments Received

Draft Agenda for: ICG face‐to‐face Meeting #6

Fri-Sat 18-19 September 2015 - 09:00 – 17:00 PDT each day

Time zone conversions here: Day 1 , Day 2
Location: San Gabriel, Westin Bonaventure, Los Angeles

Day 1 – Friday 18 Sept, 2015
09:00‐09:30 Welcome, agenda, overview of comments received, comment analysis process overview (Chairs)
09:30‐09:45 Determine general support for moving forward (Chairs)
9:45‐10:30 Comment analysis: ‐ Jurisdiction (Martin) ‐ PTI and related bodies (Lynn)
10:30‐11:00 Break
11:00‐13:00 Comment analysis ‐ PTI and related bodies continued (Lynn) ‐ Root zone maintenance and administration (Milton)
13:00‐14:00 Working lunch: Editorial fixes to Part 0 (Chairs)
14:00‐15:00 Dependency on CCWG, timeline (Chairs and liaisons)
15:00‐15:30 Comment analysis ‐ Root zone maintenance and administration continued (Milton) ‐ IANA IPR (Martin)
15:30‐16:00 Break
16:00‐16:45 Comment analysis ‐ ICG Criteria: Completeness (Q1) (Milton)
16:45‐17:00 Day 1 wrap‐up (Chairs)

Day 2 – Saturday 19 Sept, 2015 

09:00‐10:00 Items leftover from Day 1 

10:00‐10:30 Comment analysis ‐ ccTLD issues (Wolf‐Ulrich) 

10:30‐11:00 Break 

11:00‐13:00 Comment analysis ‐ NTIA criteria (Joe) ‐ ICG criteria continued (Milton/chairs) 

13:00‐14:00 Working lunch: Future call and meeting planning (Chairs) 

14:00‐14:45 Role of ICG in implementation phase (Chairs) 

14:45‐15:30 Items leftover from earlier sessions 

15:30‐16:00 Break 

16:00‐16:30 Items leftover from earlier sessions Comment analysis (time permitting) (Chairs) ‐ Process issues ‐ Institutionalization of NTIA criteria 

16:30‐17:00 Action items review (Chairs and secretariat)

(agenda pdf)

source: ICANN

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust?

ICANN video above: Alissa Cooper (IETF) - published on Jul 25, 2014 - Alissa Cooper discusses her representation of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014.

Note: this is a continuation of yesterday's post: IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts.

[Disclosure: this background information and analysis has been provided by the Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole (hereinafter "John"), who was also an observer of the CWG-Stewardship (observers are called "participants" in the CWG-Stewardship, as they are allowed to have a "voice" in the proceedings, but no "vote" in the consensus decision-making).]

As noted yesterday, Alissa Cooper (hereinafter "Alissa"), ICG co-chair, sent an email to CWG-Stewardship Friday, in which the "ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC." This issue being the transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name to the IETF Trust as proposed by the Numbers community (RIRs/CRISP). The IETF Trust, is not affiliated with ICANN, and according to its website, its sole beneficiary is the IETF, also known as the "the Protocols community," represented by Alissa (see video above). The IETF has agreed to have the IETF Trust be the transferee of the IANA trademarks and domain name (iana.org) which are owned/registered in the name of ICANN. The two other key players in this whole saga are Greg Shatan (hereinafter "Greg"), IP attorney and IPC President, and Professor Milton Mueller (hereinafter "Milton"), who is a member of the ICG but also participates or contributes to the Names, Numbers, Protocols, and CCWG-Accountability mail lists, and has been active in ICANN since the late 1990s.

Here are the most relevant links (dates are all calendar year 2015):

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name - Greg flagged the Numbers proposal to transfer the IANA trademarks as an issue to be addressed by the CWG-Stewardship on February 23, 2015, by way of his proposed Design Team G.

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG: via Alissa, Numbers community rationale for transferring the trademarks and domain name from ICANN to the IETF Trust.

March 1-2: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list: Greg responded to John's objection to Design Team G, after which, John concurred with Greg's statement: "To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models."  John: "... I will defer to your and Jonathan's and Lise's [CWG-Stewardship co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr] wise judgment on how to best proceed on this--perhaps even the formality of a design team can be dispensed with--it sounds like you need to move quickly "to slow the train down." If so, do whatever is necessary..." [note: soon thereafter John withdrew from any active participation in the CWG-Stewardship].

So what happened to Greg's Design Team G? Nothing it appears--the CWG-Stewardship Wiki page indicates:

June 10: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Bill Manning and Milton catch the "draft language" that Greg inserted into the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which is the same language referred to by Alissa in her email of June 19, 2015.

June 10-11:  [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Milton and Greg each express their respective positions which led to even more discussion by many people on the CWG-Stewardship mail list, including even John, who after reading the exchanges, contributed the historical context--[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5--to which Greg replied with "thanks," and Milton responded that the historical trademark/domain name record was "not relevant" to which John responded (also explaining the importance of this issue for domain name registrants, trademark holders, and the global multistakeholder community). Thereafter Greg responded to Milton which left the CWG-stewardship proposal with the draft language to which the ICG responded Friday through Alissa.

postscript: Jonathan Robinson's (co-chair of the CWG-Stewardship) posting on June 11, 2015, is interesting:

Bill [Manning],
Two key points from my perspective:
1. There is urgency to send the proposal out to the chartering organisations but that does not in any way imply a lack of recognition to deal with this trademarks issue.
2. Lise and I have previously had meetings with the CRISP chairs. We have also had meetings with the ICG chairs group. The purpose of the meetings was primarily to ensure continuous updates on progress and current issues. We touched on the trademarks issue in a meeting with the ICG chairs yesterday. Clearly, there is now some more work to be done.

Jonathan

Yes, there is clearly "some more work to be done"--that may be the understatement of the year!

Domain Mondo doesn't know how the SO/ACs are supposed to approve a CWG-Stewardship proposal that isn't yet finished. Welcome to the Land of ICANN!

Domain Mondo UPDATE: ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name


Follow @DomainMondo

LIVE Webinars on the CWG-Stewardship's Final IANA Transition Proposal

LIVE Webinar Briefings on the CWG-Stewardship Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition:

Following Public Comment periods in December 2014 and April/May 2015, the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions, otherwise known as CWG-Stewardship, finalized its proposal and has delivered it to SO/AC chartering organizations for approval. The chartering organizations will deliberate during the ICANN53 meeting in Buenos Aires, with expected delivery of the proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 25 June 2015.

In order to brief the community on the contents of the final proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs will host two identical briefing webinars on 11 June at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:

• June 11th from 06:00 – 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here) 2:00 AM EDT (US) note: this is the same as June 10th at 11:00 pm PDT (US)
• June 11th from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here)  9 am EDT (US)

The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room. The webinars will be conducted in English, and will also be recorded, transcribed, and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki.

The full ICANN announcement may be found here.


Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), Conference Calls

Upcoming ICG Calls - The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has scheduled its thirteenth and fourteenth conference calls:

ICG Call # 13 – Wednesday, 11 March at 12:00-13:00 UTC (time converter here)

ICG Call # 14 – Wednesday, 25 March at 20:00-21:00 UTC (time converter here)

Anyone is welcome to attend by way of a listen-only mode Virtual Meeting Room through which audio of the call will be streamed. Translations will be available through relevant Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers and Conference ID codes.

A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:

Français – Conference ID: 75929475
Español – Conference ID: 68385764
中文 – Conference ID: 825702
Pусский – Conference ID: 345720
العربية – Conference ID: 82855066
Português – Conference ID: 759752

Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service (go to ICANN link below).

For more information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition: IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Website. (source: ICANN)

Follow @DomainMondo

ICG and Working Group Sessions at ICANN 52

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
ICG and Working Group Sessions at ICANN 52 shown above

ICANN52 | Singapore
Full Schedule: 6-13 FEB 2015
Singapore Date and Time:

Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Stewardship Transition, ICG Meeting Online, Singapore Feb 6-7

ICANN52 | Singapore
Full Schedule: 6-13 FEB 2015
Singapore Date and Time:

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is holding a Face-to-Face Meeting on 6-7 February (Singapore Time), in Singapore in conjunction with ICANN 52:

Date and Times (Singapore Time):

Fri, 6 February 2015 - 09:00 to 17:00 SGT time conversion (US EST Feb 5 8pm - Feb 6 4am)

Sat 7 February 2015 - 09:00 to 17:00 SGT time conversion  (US EST Feb 6 8pm - Feb 7 4am)

Remote Participation:
High Bandwidth
Service Type Language
Audio Stream Live العربية
Audio Stream Live English
Audio Stream Live Español
Audio Stream Live Français
Audio Stream Live Português
Audio Stream Live Русский
Audio Stream Live 简体中文

Virtual Meeting Room Stream Live English

Low Bandwidth
Service Type Language
Audio Stream Live العربية
Audio Stream Live English
Audio Stream Live Español
Audio Stream Live Français
Audio Stream Live Português
Audio Stream Live Русский
Audio Stream Live 简体中文

Draft Agenda:
Friday, 6 February 2015
Welcome (Patrik)
09:00-09:05: Approval of Minutes of Jan 28 Teleconference Call
09:05-09:30: Agenda review
Outstanding minutes approval
Secretariat, logistics, teleconferences etc
09:30-10:30: Status coordination with ICANN Accountability CCWG (Mohamed)
10:30-11:00: Break
11:00-13:00: Process finalization process, questions that are filed etc. (Everyone)
Discussion about handling of community comments (Manal)
13:00-14:00: Lunch (Box lunch arranged for ICG members)
14:00-15:15: Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone)
15:15-15:45: Break
15:45-17:00: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone)
17:00-21:00: Group meeting(s) for people gathering in work sessions

Saturday, 7 February 2015
09:00-10:30: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone)
10:30-11:00: Break
11:00-12:30: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone)
12:30-13:00: Summary, path forward and decisions if afternoon session is needed (Everyone)
13:00-14:00: Lunch
14:00-15:15: Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone)
15:15-15:45: Overflow: Break
15:45-17:00: Future teleconference and face-to-face meeting schedule

ICG Links:
NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition microsite
NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition
IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Activities
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/

From the ICG: The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)'s Request for Proposals [PDF, 84 KB] from the operational communities noted the following: "While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum@icann.org. The ICG will next be discussing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals on February 6. As such, the ICG requests that community comments concerning those two proposals or the processes used to create them be received by February 4 at 23:59 UTC. Comments received after that time will not be considered as part of Step I of the ICG's Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process [PDF, 89 KB] for the protocol parameters and numbering proposals."

Follow @DomainMondo

Separating IANA Functions From ICANN, My Question To ICG

Ethics Fight Over Domain Names Intensifies - NYTimes.com: March 18, 2012 ".... the United States government is also dissatisfied with ICANN. The Commerce Department said it had canceled a request for proposals to run the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] because none of the bids met its requirements: “the need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.”..."

Jordan Carter, Chief Executive, InternetNZ, October 15, 2014, at ICANN 51:
"A thought that has been bubbling away here at ICANN LA this week for me: If we are going to have a successful [IANA functions] transition, it's really important for the numbers and protocols folks to understand that:
a) they have superior accountability situations to the names people today
b) the names people cannot copy number/protocol accountability mechanisms because they aren't organised outside ICANN
c) it isn't possible for names to organise outside ICANN in the way numbers/protocol people do
d) there may need to be structural changes or new bodies to provide a workable settlement for names
e) without a workable settlement for names, there isn't going to be a transition.

I raise this now because both for numbers and protocols there's a clear direction to try and rule out any institutional changes. I strongly caution against any part of the community being dogmatic about any of these, because it will a) attract some attention that'll risk the whole transition process failing (esp. from governments), and b) means that a negotiated outcome is harder to achieve, also risking failure...." (emphasis added)

GAC Discussion with IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group [ICG], 15 October 2014 from 10:30-11:30 PDT at ICANN51 | Los Angeles in the Santa Monica room:

Question to ICG from John Poole, Domain Mondo (via chat window): "Your process assumes that ICANN continues to exist as it is presently structured—a California corporation with no membership, etc. Yesterday [Tuesday, Oct 14], ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade told GAC that in regard to the Accountability Process, “everything is in Scope” and “nothing is out of Scope” which by implication includes the possibility that ICANN may be replaced or restructured. Without knowing the future organizational structure and accountability structure/controls of ICANN or its successor, how can the IANA transition planning proceed and be expected to produce a competent and relevant proposal for Stewardship of the IANA Functions unless your Proposal provides for the complete structural separation of IANA functions from ICANN?"

Response: Thank you for your question.  Only the questions from GAC members will be read out. 

UPDATE: Question asked at Community Discussion with the IANA Stewardship (ICG) and answered by ICG member Milton Mueller below:

MILTON MUELLER: "NOTHING IN OUR PROCESS PRESUMES THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN ANY OF THE OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES RELATIONSHIP TO ICANN OR TO IANA. I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT THESE COMMUNITIES WILL AGREE TO DO OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. SO I THINK THE DOOR IS OPEN TO ANY CHANGE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT PROVIDES A CONSENSUAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP THAT RESPONDS IN A WAY TO THE ABSENCE OF THE NTIA THAT MAKES THINGS ACCOUNTABLE AND SECURE AND OPERATIONAL. OR WHICHEVER BODY THAT MAY TAKE OVER. DOES ICG NEGOTIATING THAT PROPOSAL WITH ICANN BEFORE SUBMITTING TO NTIA OR DURING THE NTIA PROCESS." (emphasis added)


Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN, ccTLDs, the IANA Problem (video)

ICG Interview: Martin Boyle (ccNSO) - (video below)

Martin Boyle discusses his representation of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014. -- (published by ICANN July 25, 2014)

RFC 1591 - Domain Name System Structure and Delegation: " In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.... The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list...." -- Jon Postel, March 1994

In a nutshell here's the problem: ccTLDs (country code Top-Level Domains), the country code domain system, was created in the early days of the Domain Name System, and pre-dates ICANN. Each national government manages and establishes policy for its own ccTLD. Other than ICANN performing its limited clerical IANA role under its agreement with the US government, ccTLDs have no relationship with ICANN except to the extent that some, but not all, ccTLDs have entered into agreements with ICANN. The ccNSO or Country Code Names Supporting Organisation is a body within the ICANN structure created for ccTLD managers but not all ccTLDs are members of the ccNSO. However, now that the US government has announced its intention to transition all of its oversight over the IANA functions, and the ICG was established by ICANN, somehow ccTLDs who are not members of ccNSO have no representation on the ICG. How's that for inclusivity of the global multi-stakeholder community?


Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group meeting, my comments

My "chat comments" (and related chat comments) from the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) [a/k/a IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group] First Meeting in London this past week:

From the July 17, 2014 transcript:

John Poole: Every user of the internet is affected by IANA -- why are they limiting this to certain "communities?"

John Poole: IANA transition should not be dependent upon ICANN accountability -- ICANN may never be accountable and others have proposals to reform or replace ICANN. If you make the IANA process
dependent on the outcome of the ICANN accountability process--moving away from US government oversight may take years, if ever

John Poole: wrong to say "presumably IANA becomes part of ICANN" when proposals have already been made to separate IANA from ICANN

Keith Drazek, gTLD Registries [ICG member]: @JohnPoole, yes, I shouldn't have used the word "presumably;" I should have said "If one were to assume..." in the context of the current discussion. I was simply trying to illuminate that there are differences between the name/number/protocol strucures today that need to be understood moving forward. Apologies

John Poole: @KeithDrazek - gTLD Registries: thank you for your acknowledgment and correction

John Poole: Good that Milton [Milton Mueller - ICG member] caught the error being "pushed" that tries to "force" ICANN into NTIA role

John Poole: Good to hear at least some CG members are mindful and open to receiving proposals from other than "insider" groups -- wasn't this supposed to be an inclusive process for all including those outside of ICANN?

John Poole: That's a big assumption that everyone in the world can get access into 1 of only 4 [now just 3] groups!

John Poole: It is obvious that there are stakeholders who are not represented on the CG -- just acknowledge that fact and commit to an open and transparent process for everyone

Keith Drazek, gTLD Registries: In the spirit of bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholderism,
the process must be open and transparent for anyone who wants to contribute. What stakeholders are not already represented or who don't have the opportunity to participate in an exististing strucure?

John Poole: @Keith -- exactly --"Represented" is different from "opportunity to participate"

Mohamed El Bashir [ICG member]: Although At-Large community, which I represent in ICG, is less geographical representative, but being politically sensitive and ensure that acceptance of the future outcomes of our work, I am supporting adding extra 3 GAC members.Participated WICT conference, There is a lots wrong perceptions regarding the ICANN Role/NTIA stewardship role especially in the developing world, GAC can create awareness among governments and ensure regional Internet government organizations ( e.g African Union, Arab League, ..etc ) are involved and are engaged in the process.

John Poole: @Mohamed agree

Bill Drake: I don't want to be in Istanbul listening to governments saying that they were locked out of the process and its outcome will be illegitimate

Bill Drake: and I especially don't want to hear them saying that at the ITU Plenipotentiary

John Poole: @Bill +1

More info on the ICG meeting here.


Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo