[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Avri,
Good Catch
Thank you very much for the clear description of the case .I have raised
this point togetjher with few other interdependece of the CWG/ICG and CCWG
accountabilty mechanism.
I will raise it again wiith clear emphasis at the next ICG meeting 18-19
Sept.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-09-16 7:19 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I think it was just oversight on our part.  At one point I was supposed
> to track these things for the CWG in the CCWG, but once the chairs took
> over the liaison role with their frequent joint leadership meetings, I
> admit I fell asleep on the task and it was only when doing the review of
> both documents that the gap became obvious. So, I started talking it up
> and decided to put a comment on it.
>
> Part of the CWG requirement on the CCWG was a mechanism to insure that
> the ICANN Names Operational  Community would have the same power that
> the IETF has to replace its IANA function operator defined in an
> ironclad manner under the new accountability mechanisms.  Not only did
> the CWG recommend that a fundamental bylaw be created that covered the
> Separation Cross Community WG (SCWG), but it included the requirement
> for the outcome of this group to be approved both by the Board " *and a
> community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability**process."
> *T*he CWG was not determining the CCWG outcome of a *SM*, but indicated
> that whatever Community Mechanism we create, have the power to approve,
> or disapprove, the recommendation of the SCWG along with the
> Boar*d.****Similar to the CCWG WS1 recommendation itself, it is a
> decision that the community and the Board would need to come to
> together. ****While not an issue in the CWG comment on CCWG Draft 2, I
> believe there is an inconsistency between the CWG report as included in
> the ICG aggregated proposal and CCWG Draft 2. The CWG comment on CCWG
> indicates that this may no longer be necessary as the other mechanisms
> somehow make up for the absence of this direct power. This may indeed
> end up the result, but I believe that at the issue needs to be
> discussed, and a change needs to be made either in the ICG report,
> backing off on the explicit requirement, or in the CCWG's list of
> community powers. Of course if we go with the MEM, this may all be moot
> as far as the CCWG is concerned, as there would be no community powers
> as conceived in Draft 2. Though I expect we would need to then change
> the CWG's explicit requirements as defined in the ICG aggregated
> proposal. As far as NTIA is concerned, I just think they will be looking
> for consistency in our recommendations. I do not believe they care about
> such details, as long as we find general agreement on them. thanks avri
>
> > Avri,
> >
> > I was very interested in your comment regarding the need to amend to
> > provide for a community power to allow approval of any replacement
> > IANA provider in the event of separation.  This seems to very directly
> > concern the IANA transition itself and the prospect of securing
> > certification of the proposal by the NTIA to Congress.
> >
> >
> >
> > Could you please explain this a bit further in simple language?  Are
> > you saying that ICG or Stewardship has specified that in the event it
> > becomes necessary to replace PTI, then approval (or veto) of that
> > choice should be a listed community power of the Sole Member?
> >
> >
> >
> > Just seeking to understand this issue more clearly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
> >
> > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
> >
> > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
> >
> > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
> >
> > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com
> > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > * *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of
> > this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
> > employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment
> > to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> > dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any
> > attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> > communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> > the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150916/a620878a/attachment.html>