[CCWG-ACCT] CWG Meeting Notes related to expectations from CCWG
Giovanni.Seppia at eurid.eu
Wed Apr 15 08:48:27 UTC 2015
Thanks for this.
Concerning “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.”, I’d like to remind the group that the ccNSO Strategy and Operating Plan working group has requested this kind of information countlessly over the past eight years. When responding to the request, ICANN staff underlined the difficulties relating to such cost itemisation because of various issues. I am not saying we should lose faith in having them one day, but the community may get answers very similar to what we already heard.
As ccNSO SOP chair, I will make sure this request is well highlighted in the coming ccNSO SOP comment on the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget.
On 15 Apr 2015, at 10:34, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
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<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Pour : cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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.
<Portion de message joint.txt>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
External Relations Manager
1831 Diegem - Belgium
TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750
MOB:+39 335 8141733
giovanni.seppia at eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia at eurid.eu>
[cid:2934C4EE-CAF2-4BA4-9DC0-AB9A25CC6ADC at Docomointertouch.com]
Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu>
This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received
this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by
telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should
not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely
upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and
any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known
viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for
presence of viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2969 bytes
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community