[CCWG-ACCT] Delegation / redelegation and scope of CCWG (Was:Re: ISTACC call 2015-04-15)
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Fri Apr 17 19:11:28 UTC 2015
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 19:38, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Was Eberhard referring to this??
>> On Apr 17, 2015 2:58 AM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>> Dear Eberhard,
>> First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here.
>> Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful.
>> The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions".
>> Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations.
>> I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope.
>> Best regards,
>> Le 15/04/2015 23:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>> we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two
>>> issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager
>>> For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others
>>> provided for context):
>>> This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking
>>> place alongside a parallel and related process on the
>>> transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through
>>> the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
>>> on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
>>> The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements
>>> required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
>>> accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of
>>> the IANA Functions Contract.
>>> Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions
>>> (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not
>>> within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being
>>> dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
>>> Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and
>>> interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their
>>> Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or
>>> should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that
>>> effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I
>>> believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the
>>> functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the
>>> decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not
>>> recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
>>> I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie
>>> how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is
>>> or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue
>>> should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff
>>> leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts.
>>> That would also be operational.
>>> But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the
>>> actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to
>>> address this.
>>> And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
>>> Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to
>>> how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to
>>> make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but
>>> not necessarily only them.
>>> The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond,
>>> borders on the deliberate.
>>> It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair",
>>> by the way :-)-O
>>> And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really
>>> would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he
>>> referred to so eloquently.
>>> I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
>>> greetings, el
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Mathieu WEILL
>> AFNIC - directeur général
>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community