[CCWG-ACCT] CWG input to our group
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Mon Apr 13 15:49:06 UTC 2015
Just so that we get this on the record, I disagree with the summary of the two CCWG co-Chairs provided to the CWG.
el
--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 16:23, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you may know, the CWG has started today an intense work period of 2 days. You will find the notes of the 1st session below. Thomas and I were invited to provide an update on the CCWG.
>
> You will also note that the CWG puts emphasis on their expectations towards our work. We can expect a consolidation of these requirements to be sent to us shortly after their 2 days of work.
>
> For illustration purposes, the first session already addressed :
> - budget requirement
>> Statement for CCWG: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed.
> - ccTLD delegation appeals
>> Statement for CCWG: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal).
> - also mention of a periodic review of IANA performance
>> These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
>
> Best
> Mathieu
>
> -------- Message transféré --------
> Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #35 - 13 April
> Date : Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:47:01 +0000
> De : Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> Pour : cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> <mime-attachment.gif>
> Dear all,
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576
> Action Items
> Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language
> Notes
> 1. Opening Remarks
> ·
> · Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days.
> · 6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs.
> · Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit.
> · Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well.
> · There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N.
> 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct:
> ·
> · ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)
> · Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option)
> · Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)
> · Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)
> The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end.
> 2. CCWG-Accountability Update (Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill)
> The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws.
> CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law.
> CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the CWG requirements.
> If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing.
> All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now.
> Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw
> 3. DT-O (budget)
> · DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez
> · Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure.
> · Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution.
> · No disagreement with DT-O recommendations
> · CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG?
> · Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal
> · If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto?
> · The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool
> Statement for CCWG: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed.
> 4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)
> · Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism
> · Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received)
> · Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now.
> · So recommendation is to not pursue this now
> · The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date.
> · For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG.
> Statement for CCWG: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal).
> 5. DT-N (Periodic Review)
> · These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
> · First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that
> · Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with
> · The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment
> · Does the review expand to address IANA policy?
> · Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period.
> Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language
> 6. AOB
> 7. Closing Remarks
>
>
>
>
> <Portion de message joint>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150413/fb3e246f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mime-attachment.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150413/fb3e246f/mime-attachment.gif>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list