[CCWG-ACCT] CWG Meeting Notes related to expectations from CCWG

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Apr 15 08:34:54 UTC 2015

Dear Colleagues,

I am pasting below the notes of CWG Meeting #40 which addressed the 
topics of expectations towards our group.

This is of course very relevant to our work, in terms of drafting our 
recommendations as well as the consideration of our workplan and timeline.


-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet :     [CWG-Stewardship] Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC
Date :     Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:51:43 +0000
De :     Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Pour :     cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

4. Instructions for CCWG?

• ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around 
cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)

Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG 
expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto 
the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in 
relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of 
its transition plan that:

1. The IANA Function’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any 
future state of the IANA Function.

2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the 
FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of 
all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the 
project level and below as needed.

• Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 
confidence vote option) –

Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering 
(Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the 
CWG will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability 
mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of 
ICANN Board decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); 
approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation 
of a stakeholder community / member group to trigger these kinds of 
abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and 
interdependence between the two groups and the need to continue close 
co-operation and regular information sharing.

• Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 
'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)

Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the 
IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years 
and would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG 
understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic 
reviews as mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an 
IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. 
Further details on the mechanics of such a review are available and can 
be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can 
be incorporated as part of the CCWG’s efforts.

• Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)

Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the 
recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for 
ccTLDs and the survey results that led to this recommendation which 
notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism 
regarding re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any 
appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation 
/ re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the 
ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does 
want to emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to 
cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is 
option is expected to be specifically called out as one of the possible 
escalation mechanisms  in the draft transition proposal.

-------------- next part --------------
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list