<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>The gTLDs need may be to be explained, again, the necessity of their input into ccTLDs/ccNSO, which is as much as we need another deluge.</div><div><br></div><div>I am unaware of such nonsense having made it towards CCWG-Accountability and will object against it, should it.</div><div><br></div><div>el<br><br>-- <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13pt; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373);">Sent from </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s</span></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>On Jan 16, 2015, at 13:05, Chris Disspain <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">I’m beginning to think that I may have a blind spot here. Help me to figure this out.<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.</blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed. So the remarks by Chuck re ccTLDs are surprising.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.</blockquote><div><br></div>How does that sit with Chuck’s suggest that the CCWG...</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">provide an accountability process that registry operators (<b>c's</b> & g's) and <b>possibly governments in the case of<br>ccTLDs</b> can use in cases where they think <b>delegation and re-delegation<br>decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local<br>law.</b></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Unless I’m misreading this then it is saying that coming up with such a process is the job of the CCWG. </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.</blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed that this is the CWG’s role. Chuck’s point was about the expectations of the CCWG on Accountability. <br><div>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:43 , Paul M Kane <<a href="mailto:Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk">Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Chris<br><br>Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.<br><br>During yesterday's call it was recognised that (the majority of) ccTLDs Registries have a very different relationship with ICANN than that of gTLDs Registries.<br><br>The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.<br><br>The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.<br>Over the holiday period the process has been captured and the simple (accountable) structure has become seriously over-complicated. Overburdening the structure is a game currently being played by some to sink the initiative, or capture it, and time is needed to redress the balance and loose the excess baggage.<br><br>IMHO it is out of scope for the IANA Accountability process to have a sanction to remove an ICANN Director - but this also needs more time to play out.<br><br>Best<br><br>Paul<br><br><br>Chris Disspain wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Understood Roelof.<br><br>My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them.<br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br><br>Chris<br><br><br>On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a> <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Chris, All,<br><br>I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s<br>accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc.<br>I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the<br>deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is<br>enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be<br>inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs.<br><br>Yes, I am an optimist, life is great<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Roelof<br><br><br><br><br>On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <<a href="mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as">SDeerhake@nic.as</a> <<a href="mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as">mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as</a>>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Chris,<br><br>Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with<br>drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and<br>re-delegation"<br>is a complete non-starter.<br><br>How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG?<br><br>I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I<br>don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger<br>problem<br>is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the<br>FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date.<br><br>Best,<br><br>/Stephen<br><br>Stephen Deerhake<br>Director of Registry Services<br>AS Domain Registry<br>GDNS LLC<br>+1 212 334 3660<br>+1 212 656 1982 (fax)<br><a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">sdeerhake@nic.as</a> <<a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as">mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as</a>><br><a href="mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net">sdeerhake@gdns.net</a><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org">cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org</a><br>[<a href="mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org">mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chris<br>Disspain<br>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM<br>To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members;<br><a href="mailto:cctldworld@icann.org">cctldworld@icann.org</a><br>Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG<br>Proposal(s)<br>Importance: High<br><br>All,<br><br><blockquote type="cite">We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process<br>that<br></blockquote>registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of<br>ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation<br>decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local<br>law.<br><br><br>I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand<br>before I stop and let it go.<br><br>Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an<br>accountability process re delegation and re-delegation?<br><br>Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the<br>interpretations of the FoI WG?<br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Chris<br><br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd<br>T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112<br>E: <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a> | W: <a href="http://www.auda.org.au">www.auda.org.au</a> auDA - Australia's Domain Name<br>Administrator<br><br>Important Notice - This email may contain information which is<br>confidential<br>and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the<br>named<br>addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,<br>disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email<br>by<br>mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.<br>Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">From: "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG<br></blockquote>Proposal(s)<br><blockquote type="cite">Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT<br>To: Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>, CWG IANA<br><<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br><br>Alan,<br><br>First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call:<br>We<br></blockquote>need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that<br>registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of<br>ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation<br>decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local<br>law.<br>This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal<br>within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not<br>sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that<br>would be preferred though.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2<br>(Independent<br></blockquote>certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of<br>gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or<br>re-delegated<br>would happen before any certification would occur. The certification<br>would<br>simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I<br>think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification<br>happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would<br>need<br>to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that<br>is<br></blockquote>something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my<br>view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a<br>certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability<br>processes.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs<br></blockquote>from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability<br>mechanisms<br>from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for<br>the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the<br>accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Chuck<br><br>From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icannorg] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg<br>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM<br>To: CWG IANA<br>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG<br>Proposal(s)<br><br>I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or<br></blockquote>accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two<br>proposals currently under consideration.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG<br>is<br></blockquote>considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which<br>the<br>community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might<br>provide<br>additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely<br>required<br>to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a<br>judgement call that not all might agree with.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one<br></blockquote>additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna<br>during the third meeting that listed several other potential<br>accountability<br>issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an<br>error in saving it.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list<br>that<br></blockquote>the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do<br>not<br>believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the<br>interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale<br>for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so<br>that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with<br>the<br>proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as<br>to<br>under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict<br>with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being<br>binding.<br>I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more<br>generalized<br>IAP (once the request goes to IANA).<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my<br></blockquote>discussions with a number of people over the last weeks.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Contract Co. Model Requirements<br><br>1. Independent Review of Board Actions<br><br>Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to<br>be<br></blockquote>defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions<br>Panel<br>would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests<br><br>This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all<br>changes<br></blockquote>to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA.<br>The<br>replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and<br>re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision<br>on<br>these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>3. Independent Appeals Panel<br><br>An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested<br>changes<br></blockquote>to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still<br>ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed<br>that<br>the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need<br>for<br>an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the<br>appeal process.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the<br>change request going to IANA<br><br>A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and<br></blockquote>gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms<br>not being followed).<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements<br><br>This model will require all of the above measures plus the following:<br><br>5. Control over ICANN Board decisions.<br><br>The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other<br></blockquote>non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision,<br>or<br>to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to<br>consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need<br>to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS<br>community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be<br>restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be<br>practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an<br>IANA-related decision).<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>6. Ability to Remove Directors<br><br>The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or<br></blockquote>all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a<br>mechanism<br>would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement<br>regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall<br>their appointed Director(s).<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>ccTLDcommunity mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org</a><br><a href="http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity">http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity</a><br><br>To unsubscribe please send a blank email to<br><a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ccTLDcommunity mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org</a><br><a href="http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity">http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity</a><br><br>To unsubscribe please send a blank email to<br><a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org</a><br></blockquote><br></blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Cctldworld mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Cctldworld@icann.org">Cctldworld@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld</a><br> <br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br></div></div></span></div></blockquote></body></html>