<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Chris,</div><div><br></div><div>this will not get unanimous consent, let me assure you. Though I seem to have overlook this particular morsel.</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 15, 2015, at 23:58, Chris Disspain <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>All,</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that registry operators (c’s & g’s) and possibly governments in the case of ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. </span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand before I stop and let it go.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? </span><br><span></span><br><span>Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the interpretations of the FoI WG?</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Cheers,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Chris</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Cheers,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer</span><br><span>.au Domain Administration Ltd</span><br><span>T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112</span><br><span>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> </span><br><span>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</span><br><span></span><br><span>Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Begin forwarded message:</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>, CWG IANA <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Alan,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that registry operators (c’s & g’s) and possibly governments in the case of ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local law. This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that would be preferred though.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Alan – why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 (Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or re-delegated would happen before any certification would occur. The certification would simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would need to be defined. I won’t try to venture into the ccTLD world.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don’t think that is something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability processes.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability mechanisms from the CCWG but we don’t specifically need the one that would allow for the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Chuck</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: CWG IANA</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two proposals currently under consideration.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG is considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which the community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might provide additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely required to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a judgement call that not all might agree with.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna during the third meeting that listed several other potential accountability issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an error in saving it.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list that the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do not believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with the proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as to under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being binding. I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more generalized IAP (once the request goes to IANA).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my discussions with a number of people over the last weeks.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Contract Co. Model Requirements</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>1. Independent Review of Board Actions</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to be defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions Panel would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>3. Independent Appeals Panel</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed that the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the appeal process.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms not being followed).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This model will require all of the above measures plus the following:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>5. Control over ICANN Board decisions.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, or to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an IANA-related decision).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>6. Ability to Remove Directors</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a mechanism would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall their appointed Director(s).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>ccTLDcommunity mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity">http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>To unsubscribe please send a blank email to <a href="mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org">ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>