IANA, ICANN Accountability, CCWG Crunch Time! Midnight Deadlines!

UPDATE 30 Nov 2015: CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations now open for comments.  Comments close 21 Dec 2015 23:59 UTC.

In order to brief the community on the contents of their Draft proposal, the CCWG-Accountability will host two identical briefing webinars on Wednesday, 2 December at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:

• 2 December from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here)
• 2 December from 20:00 – 21:30 UTC (time zone converter here)

The webinars will be run online via Adobe Connect room (Strategic Initiatives Webinar).

If you are interested in attending the webinar but would like to receive phone dial-in details, please send an email to acct-staff@icann.org and indicate your language request (if needed). The webinars will be recorded and transcribed. Live interpretation will be made available in English, Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic, Russian and Portuguese. More info here.

IANA Transition: CCWG-Accountability Schedule (source: ICANN.org)

It's Crunch Time for the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)--everyone is waiting on the CCWG to finish its work so the complete IANA Stewardship Transition Plan as requested by NTIA (US Department of Commerce)--IANA Functions Proposal (ICG) + ICANN Accountability Proposal (CCWG)--may be received by the ICANN Board, and in turn, transmitted by the ICANN Board to NTIA for review and approval.

People are working overtime, ICANN has hired professional writers ("Writing team" in schedule above) to finish the job, and hopefully, the Chartering organizations will timely approve the coming 3rd Draft Proposal so it may be transmitted by ICANN to the NTIA in January, 2016. At least that's the Plan. Biggest sticking point at this time appears to be Stress Test 18 relating to GAC advice.UPDATE: See NTIA vetoes ....

While some CCWG participants have questioned the CCWG timeline--see, e.g., here and here--so far, it's pedal to the metal as the steamroller moves on! Stay tuned--Domain Mondo is following this one closely.

See also on Domain Mondo:

•  NTIA Vetoes Compromise Proposal on GAC Advice to ICANN Board 26 Nov 2015
• CCWG on ICANN Accountability Issues Preview of Third Draft Proposal 16 Nov 2015
• IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, New CCWG Proposal, New Timeline 29 Oct 2015
• CCWG Steamroller! ICANN 'Chattering' Organizations In Parallel Universe! 21 Oct 2015
• ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade "Steamrolled" by CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair 27 Sep 2015

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition Comment Deadline, Domain Mondo Editor Comments

The deadline to submit comments on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is today, September 8, 2015, at 23:59 UTC which is 7:59 PM ET (US). After the conclusion of the public comment period, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. More information including Instructions for How to Submit Public Comments is here | https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/.

Below are the comments submitted by the Editor of Domain Mondo:

Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole
1) Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of the operational community proposals contains aspects to be completed in the future when the proposal is implemented. Is the combined proposal specified in sufficient detail such that it can be evaluated against the NTIA criteria?

Numbers: Complete;
Protocol Parameters: Complete;
Names community: INCOMPLETE due to its "dependencies" upon the final work product of WS-1 of CCWG-Accountability, which at this point appears to be unacceptable or inadequate in its present form as contained in the "2nd draft report" published for a comment period ending Sept 12, 2015.

2) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

The numbers and protocols proposals work together as a single proposal, with ICANN as the IANA functions operator (IFO). The names proposal is incompatible and inconsistent and results in creating a second IFO (for the "Names community") called PTI, a to-be-created corporation. This is creating unnecessary complexity, incurring unnecessary costs (CWG-Stewardship has reportedly incurred millions of dollars in legal fees, with more to come), and deriving little, if any, net benefit for the names community or the global Internet community. All of this could have been handled internally to ICANN through new bylaws whereby the gTLDs and ccTLDs could comprise a CSC and provisions providing for the selection of a different IFO than ICANN should that need arise. The irony in all of this is that the IANA department within ICANN has always performed its job well as far as I have been able to determine. Certainly numbers and protocols think so. Unfortunately, as the ICG is well aware, CWG-stewardship or “names community” is a dysfunctional group (described by one ICG member, the esteemed Prof. Mueller, as “a collection of warring interests”), who wasted months trying to develop an overly complex "turnkey" proposal referred to as "Contract Co." only to jettison that concept for a "compromise" "hybrid" "solution" now called PTI. This is all indicative of what Nassim Taleb refers to as the "fragilista" who “make you engage in policies and actions, all artificial, in which the benefits are small and visible, and the side effects (are) potentially severe and invisible.” Unfortunately this is also consistent with the tendency of many of ICANN's "names" stakeholders in ICANN policymaking processes to prefer complex dysfunctional solutions over simple functional solutions, in order to increase their "insider" knowledge and status, increase costs, and form barriers to any effective participation by "outsiders" from the global Internet community. Can we (ICANN and the global Internet community) live with this incompatibility and the potential "conflicting overlaps?" As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, I am confident the ICANN Board, management and staff can jury-rig the "workarounds" necessary to "make it work."

3) Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA functions? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

Numbers and Protocols proposals have accountability built-in, consistent with years of experience working with ICANN as IFO. Names proposal? Unknown. CWG-Stewardship claims its new structures' accountability mechanisms will work. Time will tell. See also #6 below.

4) Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the operational community proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

I covered this in #2 above.

Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria
5) Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

For better or worse, I think the proposal is consistent with the multistakeholder model.

6) Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

No. Read Verisign's 10-Q, July 23, 2015 (p.29): "Under its new gTLD program, ICANN intends to recommend for delegation into the root zone a large number of new gTLDs potentially within a compressed timeframe. On October 23, 2013, NTIA began to authorize, and Verisign began effectuating, the delegation of the new gTLDs. In view of our role as the Root Zone Maintainer, and as a root operator, we face increased risks should ICANN’s delegation of these new gTLDs, which represent unprecedented changes to the root zone in volume and frequency, cause security and stability problems within the DNS and/or for parties who rely on the DNS. Such risks include potential instability of the DNS including potential fragmentation of the DNS should ICANN’s delegations create sufficient instability, and potential claims based on our role in the root zone provisioning and delegation process. These risks, alone or in the aggregate, have the potential to cause serious harm to our Registry Services business. Further, our business could also be harmed through security, stability and resiliency degradation if the delegation of new gTLDs into the root zone causes problems to certain components of the DNS ecosystem or other aspects of the global DNS, or other relying parties are negatively impacted as a result of domain name collisions, such as exposure or other leakage of private or sensitive information. Additionally, DNS Security Extensions (“DNSSEC”) enabled in the root zone and at other levels of the DNS require new preventative maintenance functions and operational practices that did not exist prior to the introduction of DNSSEC. Any failure by Verisign or the IANA functions operator to comply with stated practices, such as those outlined in relevant DNSSEC Practice Statements, introduces risk to DNSSEC relying parties and other Internet users and consumers of the DNS, which could have a material adverse impact on our business." http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/VRSN/368398346x0xS1014473-15-68/1014473/filing.pdf

7) Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. Please indicate if you are a customer or partner of the IANA services.

Yes, unless one or more "customers and partners of the IANA services" state differently during this comment period.

8) Do you believe the proposal maintains the openness of the Internet? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

Yes, subject to the reservations expressed in #1 and #6 above.

9) Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA's role with a government-led or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. If not, please explain why.

No.

10) Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

I think all of this is probably just a temporary iteration, necessary in order to end US government "oversight." After this is finished and implemented, I don't think anybody will mention or even consider "NTIA criteria" in the future.

11) Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please explain what modifications you believe are necessary.

No modifications necessary, provided the provisions for transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain names to the IETF Trust (see numbers proposal) is implemented in a way that ICANN may continue to use the IANA marks and domain names as a licensee so long as it or its controlled entity and affiliate, PTI, performs IANA functions.

General Questions
12) Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?

ICG should steer clear of the CCWG-Accountability proposal even though the "names proposal" has "dependencies" that might be affected. That CCWG-Accountability process looked like a "rush job" from my close observation, and now the ICANN Board is engaged and proposing changes. I haven't seen any Board specifics, but in any event, that is not within ICG's remit (be thankful). I also agree with the sentiments expressed by Brian Carpenter (Submission ID: 2) in regard to #3 and #6:

• #3--"I don't see any way that ICANN itself is held accountable for the consequences of its policy decisions (e.g. creating large numbers of unnecessary gTLDs for no discernible motive except money)."
• #6--"I've been concerned since 1998 that unchecked expansion of the number of gTLDs will eventually take us into uncharted territory from a technical resilience point of view. I see no technical and operational feedback mechanism to protect us against this operational risk in the proposal."

Also, while I do not agree with some of the specifics, I am sympathetic to the frustration expressed in the comments submitted by Parminder Jeet Singh (Submission ID: 19).

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo

Read other comments submitted here.


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

CCWG-Accountability August 31 Meetings With Advisors and ICANN Board

Meetings - Enhancing ICANN Accountability:

1. CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Advisors: Monday, 31 August 2015 from 13:00-14:00 UTC /  9:00-10:00 AM ET (US) - Time zone converter here
2. CCWG Briefing to the ICANN Board: Monday, 31 August 2015 from 22:00-23:30 UTC /  6:00-7:30 PM ET (US)  - Time zone converter here

The Adobe Connect Room is open to any and all silent observers for both meetings above: icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/

The CCWG-Accountability (Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) has published its 2nd draft for 40-day public comment--see Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) - ICANN.

Community feedback is requested on this 2nd draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place (Work Stream 1). Comments are due by the deadline of 12 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

Next up: CCWG/Board Dialogue Call – Wednesday, 2 September 2015 from 22:00 – 01:00 AM/UTC (Thurs, 3 Sept) Time zone converter here 

Online - Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dialogue/

See also Domain Mondo: ICANN Board of Directors Reviewing CCWG-Accountability Proposal: 

"... consistent with the CCWG request, the Board will have an open teleconference with the CCWG to help inform the Board's development of its comments to be submitted into the Public Comment forum before the close of the comment period on 12 September. Call details will be announced so that anyone in the community may participate..."


Follow @DomainMondo

What Does That July 29th Deadline Mean For .brand TLD Applicants?

Akram Atallah, ICANN Global Domains Division President
(source: ICANNphotos - License CC BY-SA 2.0)

Why is this man smiling?

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Google's handling of new top level domains: "Q: Will a .BRAND TLD be given any more or less weight than a .com? A: No. Those TLDs will be treated the same as other gTLDs. They will require the same geotargeting settings and configuration, and they won’t have more weight or influence in the way we crawl, index, or rank URLs."

"The idea that a brand needs its own TLD must be the biggest con ever perpetrated by domain consultants." -- Ken Schafer

What does that July 29th deadline mean for .brand TLD applicants? In short, it means the deadline to execute a Registry Agreement with ICANN for almost two hundred "brand" names, with more money than good sense, having already wasted a lot of money applying for their very own spanking new "brand" gTLD that probably will "fail to work as expected on the internet," or "break stuff," and has no, nada, SEO advantage when it comes to Google search. Where can one go to get a refund? Well, you can probably forget about getting any refund from that "domain name consultant" or registry services rep a/k/a "trusted advisor" a/k/a snake oil salesman who talked your lamebrained CTO or CIO or other staff member(s) into "applying" for that mostly useless, worthless top-level domain, that hardly any major "brand" company uses as its principal domain name, even today. It was all just another "predatory shakedown scheme" hatched by the Global Domains Division of ICANN together with those ICANN "stakeholders" who stood to profit from your stupidity and gullibility. Note that Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman and CEO of Facebook (along with many others in Silicon Valley) refused to be "suckered"--there is no dot FACEBOOK--and Mark is probably laughing at all of you reluctant .brand TLD applicants facing the July 29th deadline to sign a Registry Agreement with ICANN, which will obligate your company to pay thousands and thousands of dollars per year indefinitely into the future, instead of just doing what Zuckerberg and most "brand" registrants do, which is pay about $10 per year for the best top-level domain (TLD) god ever created--the global "gold standard in domain names"--a dot COM domain name.

But heck, you've got plenty of money to throw away, go ahead, sign the Registry Agreement, and tell Akram that Domain Mondo says hello!


Follow @DomainMondo

Next ICANN CEO: Candidate Criteria Published, Deadline for Applications

The ICANN CEO Search Committee has published the ICANN CEO Candidate Criteria (below) as well as the deadline for applications to be submitted: 20 September 2015

The Search Committee is comprised of George Sadowsky (Chair), Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Cherine Chalaby, Steve Crocker, Chris Disspain, Markus Kummer, Ram Mohan and Ray Plzak. The committee is being assisted by Odgers Berndtson (domain name: odgersberndtson.com), a global executive search firm. The comprehensive and excellent "candidate criteria," replicated below, may be found on the ICANN website, together with other information including details for submitting applications. Note: All candidate inquiries must be directed to Odgers Berndtson (contact email on the ICANN website at the link above). The "Candidate Criteria"--

Candidate Profile
ICANN requires a public interest-minded leader with a combination of business, diplomatic and organizational skills to assume the leadership of a successful multi-stakeholder organization. Candidates will be expected to demonstrate to the highest degree possible the following experience and skills. These have been grouped in no particular order under several headings that embody the multi-faceted nature of the role:

ICANN seeks candidates motivated to increase the effectiveness of the global Internet for the benefit of all.

Management and Operational Experience

• Solid record of achievement in respected public, corporate, academic service, NGOs, foundations, and/or other public service institutions 
• Proven record of strengthening, fostering and consolidating operational excellence 
• Previous experience working with and/or on Boards of non-profit and/or profit organizations 
• Ability to foster consensus-building 
• Significant experience of, and achievements in, a multi-stakeholder environment, and an understanding of policy development processes. 
• Experience in fostering diversity 
• Strong operational experience running an established organization of substantial size, with ultimate responsibility for all key functions 
• Success in managing the continued evolution of a dynamic organization, with complex legal issues and significant contractual relationships 
• Experience in resource allocation and the management of competing priorities 
• Experience in establishing, strengthening and consolidating business systems and processes 
• Good negotiator who would be able to represent ICANN and present it well in potentially adversarial environments

Global Experience

• Understanding of relevant political and policy processes, with awareness of current Internet issues around the world 
• Global exposure: experience working in leadership roles in different countries and with different cultures 
• Experienced leadership of dispersed international teams of significant size and active and diverse stakeholders 
• Experience managing complex and global process work flows and an ability to anticipate issues and advance pre-emptive action 
• Strong diplomatic skills, ability to balance between all facets of a complex ecosystem, including technical, business, and political aspect 
• Significant experience interacting and engaging with media 
• Close familiarity with the ways in which governments, the Internet technical community, civil society, business sector interests and regulatory authorities interact 

Leadership Style

• Intellectually engaging, contributes to 'thought leadership,' helps to define vision and strategy, and leverages the organization's competencies 
• Appreciates the aspects of multilingualism and how this affects many players in the developed and the developing world 
• Appreciates and handles the geopolitical currents and pressures that will affect the future of a global organization 
• Understands and demonstrates empathy, and instills that quality throughout the organization as a core part of the values and mode of operation. 
• Thrives on motivating a high level team of functioning specialists 
• A consensus builder, catalyst and motivator, who is practiced at, and enjoys, working in partnership and persuading others 
• Embodies and practices the inclusive and empowering multistakeholder approach and encourages significant volunteer involvement 

Personal Characteristics

• Aligns with ICANN's values: integrity, trust, humility, technical excellence, and public service 
• Multicultural with language skills, practiced communicator and public speaker 
• Strong belief in the value of the Internet: conscious of its role and complexity, fully embracesICANN's mission, its accountability requirements, and its bottom-up process 
• Relishes work within a community empowered organization, while taking into account the different interests of the different communities in a balanced and fair way 
• Excellent interpersonal skills at all levels 
• Committed to strengthening diversity 
• Ability to generate trust with all stakeholders and respect their input 
• Adept at rapid assimilation and adjustment to new environments 

Understanding of Internet technology and the Domain Name Industry

• Able to work within ICANN's technical remit in a rapidly evolving Internet governance ecosystem, ensuring the evolution of the organization within such a framework 
• Familiarity with /understanding of Internet technologies and, in particular, an understanding of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, including domain names, protocol parameters and addresses, and the functioning of domain name registries and registrars 
• Understanding of the domain name industry and its market structure and dynamics, including issues of competition, privacy, intellectual property, consumer protection and branding 
• Understanding of Internet addressing challenges and opportunities, including deployment of IPv6, exhaustion of IPv4, and the implications of IPv4 scarcity on the fundamental Internet architecture 

Understanding of the Internet Governance Ecosystem

• Understand the institutional environment of the Internet and its administrative governance systems, such as RIRs, IETF, IAB, ISOC, W3C, and other organizations 
• Awareness of the international dimensions, and the ability to interact with government and intergovernmental stakeholders 
• Knowledge of the UN system and other international organizations and processes 

Candidates may not match every single criterion listed above, but those who reach the final shortlist will satisfy many of them.

The candidate will be expected to work at ICANN's United States headquarters in Los Angeles, California. Substantial travel will be required. [End of the Candidate Criteria] (source: ICANN)

Follow @DomainMondo

IANA CWG Chair Tells ICANN 2nd Draft Proposal Incomplete, Needs Work

On 25 April 2015, the ICANN Board held a panel discussion during its Workshop in Los Angeles on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposals from the three communities designated by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) pursuant to the ICANN convened process as directed by the U.S. Department Commerce's NTIA in its March, 2014 announcement (audio above, edited transcript further below):

Numbering Resources (CRISP Team) RIRs "Numbers"
Protocol Parameters (IANAPLAN Working Group) IETF "Protocols"
Domain Names (CWG-Stewardship) ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC, GAC "Names"

Numbers and Protocols submitted their respective proposals in January, 2015, as requested by the ICG timetable. However the Names proposal is still "a work in progress"--its 2nd draft proposal was posted for comment last week (comment period ends May 20). Complicating things further, the Names proposal has "dependency" on the outcome of work now underway by another separate group within ICANN-- CCWG-Accountability--which is developing its own separate proposal for "enhancing ICANN accountability."

CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability have been working "overtime" to meet unrealistic deadlines and timetable imposed by ICANN (note comments of Jonathan Robinson below about "exhaustion") even though Larry Strickling of NTIA has said there is no September 2015 deadline and "the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right." Instead, both working groups, CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, are "rushing" to meet the ICANN Board/Staff-imposed timetable so the IANA contract, which terminates in September, does not have to be renewed with NTIA. Apparently ICANN is extremely fearful of the Republican-controlled U.S. House and Senate, as well as the possibility of a Republican winning the Presidency in 2016. Or perhaps it is the possibility of international intervention that has them "spooked." In any event, note below the continuing inquiry of the Board: "what can the Board do to help to keep the project on time?"

Participating in the discussion from the respective communities via remote were:
- Andrew Sullivan, (IAB) (Protocols)
- Jonathan Robinson, Co-Chair, CWG-Stewardship & GNSO Chair (Names)
- Jari Arkko, ICG Member and IETF Chair (Protocols)
- Izumi Okutani, Chair, CRISP Team (Numbers)
- Axel Pawlik, NRO Chair (Numbers)

Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President, Global Stakeholder Engagement moderated the discussion.

ICANN Board Workshop–Community Panel Discussion on IANA Stewardship, April 25th: (transcript edited, emphasis added)

Andrew Sullivan: ".... the IETF is pleased to welcome everybody else into the same sort of arrangement that we've had. We've got an arrangement that has never involved the NTIA, and it's running and it's working...."

Jonathan Robinson: "... from a CWG [CWG-Stewardship] transition perspective. And you know that this week we put out a substantially coherent proposal for public comment, 28-day public comment. It's got some rough edges, so that worries me a little. It's not entirely complete. There does need to be some work. And the concern with that is that it depends how those responding to that decide that the refinements both that the group undertakes and that the public comment expects the group to undertake, whether those are deemed to be not so material as to require another public comment. So that's clearly the big issue. Whether or not from a timing point of view we can deal with one public comment, process those public comments, put them into a revised proposal, get them out to the community ahead of Buenos Aires, and then get chartering organization support for that proposal ... Another one [issue] is that one or more chartering organizations feels that they simply haven't had the opportunity to digest the process and deal with the content and the ramifications of it. I think that would be tough because the organizations have had a lot of prior exposure, both through membership of the CWG and repeated communications and output of the group. And then the third issue that we face is this dependency and linking with that of the accountability track.So for me, those are the three challenges. And the challenge with the third one is that group had begun their work a little after the CWG on the stewardship, and yet there is a strong linking between the two. And so that will provide us with potential challenges if there isn't a belief that that work is sufficiently mature from the CWG
on accountability ... I think the Board can help by giving insight into timing. There's some push-back from the community, with good reason in part, from exhaustion and effort and, you know, requirement to commit. So I think to the extent that the timing pressures can be explained and understood, that's helpful."

Sally Costerton: "... one of the questions that came up was the impact of any delay in submission to the NTIA ..."

Jonathan Robinson: "I'm not sure I understand the question. I can speak broadly to timing and timing related issues or...."

Sally Costerton: "The question is whether you had any observations about the impact of any delay, if there is a delay, from the dates that have been stated by the NTIA."

Jonathan Robinson: "I don't think I want to speculate as to the impact of the delay ...."

Izumi Okutani: [CRISP proposal] "... One of their points that we observed as -- caused a misunderstanding about our proposal is that the numbers community want to move away from ICANN as the IANA operator. And concerns have been expressed that this might cause instability in the IANA function. And I really want to encourage them that this is not true ... But at the same time, we find it is very important that our community has the ability to choose the IANA operator, which is actually (indiscernible) already stated in the NTIA's contract with ICANN on the IANA function today. So NTIA has the ability to choose the IANA operator, and we're just replacing the
NTIA with the RIR, which is representing the numbers community. And this is very much in line with the requirements that the NTIA had put in transitioning this stewardship to the open global multistakeholder community...

Sally Costerton: "... I turn this over now to the ICANN board members. And I'm happy either for
you to address a general comment to the room or to the individual -- to the individual participants.
Would anybody like to kick off?... Never have I ever seen us so quiet here..."

Erika Mann: "... I just have a very, very simple question. How do you see the -- if there would be
progress made so that we could have a -- could move forward with the transition period as we ideally hoped in September. So what I would really love to hear from your point of views and the different views and communities you are reflecting on, if you could highlight maybe the major barriers in achieving this and what would have to be done, if at all possible, from the side of the Board and management to help you achieve this?

Sally Costerton: "Thank you, Erika. So who would like to answer Erika's question, which what can the Board do to help to keep the project on time?
If at all. 

Who would like to comment on that?
Nobody would like to comment on that.
Okay. ..."

(read the complete transcript here)

Also, apparently ICANN is now having second thoughts about the proposals from Numbers and Protocols.

Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Stewardship Transition: More Time, Work, and Legal Advice Needed

IANA Stewardship Transition, Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions--Chairs’ Statement (pdf)–Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson--after Weekend Sessions 10-11 Jan 2015--Excerpts:

"... The CWG is fully aware of the value of the contribution provided by the comprehensive and thoughtful public comments it received... When originally scheduled, the work weekend was envisaged as a time to finalize the basis of the CWG proposal in order for the proposal to be prepared for submission to the five chartering organizations (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC) and thereafter, to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition process. However, considering the diversity of comments received during the public comment period on the draft proposal, it became apparent to the CWG that more work was needed to review and refine the proposal on the back of these. As such, the weekend’s focus was on further processing of the public comment input and identifying areas of commonality within the CWG, using tools such as polls and surveys.... Looking Ahead--In striving to develop a consensus proposal, the CWG will now need to consider and integrate the outcome of the weekend sessions as well as focus on the critical next steps required. Key next steps include; obtaining legal advice on relevant elements of the proposal and further engagement with the CCWG-Accountability, as well as informing and preparing to seek support from the Chartering Organizations, all of which we recognize will affect the current timeline ..."(emphasis added)

One member's comment to the above: Response to Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10 & 11 January 2015: "Thank you Jonathan and Lise - I found the week-end to be productive (if not hard to follow at some points) but do fear we are risking making the proposal VERY complicated. May I suggest we return to a simple, efficient and responsive IANA proposal... I also would like to suggest we make very clear to the ICG that their proposed timetable is far too optimistic and that more time will be needed by the Naming Community to develop a proposal that meets "the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services"" (emphasis added)--from a Member of the Cross Working Group on IANA Stewardship Transition- Naming Functions

Sounds a lot like someone read the comments submitted by the editor of Domain Mondo to the CWG draft proposal. Sounds like, at the very least, the CWG is not rushing anymore to meet the ICG's faux timetable deadline.

Follow @DomainMondo