<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>DearAll,</div><div>If IANA functions are tasked yo PTI , it must have its specifically separated budget. A clear cut process</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 16 May 2015, at 02:49, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">hi Mathieu, all:<div><br></div><div>I sense a bit of a gap between what we have proposed in respect of the budget powers, and what the CWG has asked for.</div><div><br></div><div>May I suggest that we directly ask whether the overall budget process proposed in our first public comment really meets the needs set out by the CWG? After all, they have said detail down to project level or greater is required for the IANA budget, but we have not made any statements about how much detail we expect.</div><div><br></div><div>Our budget is also a very blunt one - it is to send back the whole budget, not to have focused community input and changes into the IANA budget itself.</div><div><br></div><div>The question I think this raises is: do we, or the CWG, need to design a specific, different process about the IANA budget?</div><div><br></div><div>I don't have a view about the answer but I think it's a question we should put to the CWG.</div><div><br></div><div>bests</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 May 2015 at 23:47, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
As you know, the CWG-Stewardship 2nd public comment is open until
May 20th
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en</a>).
Since this report lays out some dependencies between the proposals
of the CWG and our group's, we decided during our CCWG call on May
5th to prepare a CCWG submission to this public comment period. <br>
<br>
Below is a draft CCWG submission, which would be sent on behalf of
the co-chairs. Substance is based on our initial draft proposal.
Please share your feedbacks before Monday 18 May to enable
finalization of the submission in a timeframe consistent with the
CWG public comment period. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
---------<br>
Dear CWG-Stewardship co-chairs,<br>
<br>
This submission is in response to your group's 2nd draft proposal,
open for public comment on 22 April 2015. We submit these comments
as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), based on the proposed
accountability enhancements recently published by our group
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en</a>),
and open to public comment. <br>
<br>
First, we would like to underline the quality of the ongoing
coordination between co-chairs of our respective groups. We have
enjoyed regular and effective discussions since the launch of our
group in December 2014. Our groups have been updated regularly about
progress made as well as issues faced, and the interdependency and
interrelation between our work has led to key correspondence being
exchanges on a regular basis. As CCWG-Accountability co-chairs, we
have been provided with the opportunity to speak with the
CWG-Stewardship on two occasions, and you also introduced the key
elements of your 2nd draft proposal to the CCWG-Accountability. <br>
<br>
As outlined in your public comment announcement "the
CWG-Stewardship's proposal has dependencies on and is expressly
conditioned upon the CCWG-Accountability process." Overall, it is
our understanding that the CCWG-Accountability's initial proposals
meet the CWG-Stewardship expectations. We would like to stress that,
within our group's deliberations, the willingness to meet these
requirements have been uncontroversial. <br>
<br>
Our comments will focus on the specific requirements that you
outline : <br>
• Ability for the community to have more rights regarding the
development and consideration of the ICANN budget;<br>
The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals address this requirement
directly in Section 5.2, which introduces a new power for the
community to "consider strategic & operating plans and budgets
after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into
effect) and reject them based on perceived inconsistency with the
purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws,
the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders,
financial stability or other matters of concern to the community."<br>
<br>
• Empowering the multistakeholder community to have certain
rights with respect to the ICANN Board, including the ICANN Board's
oversight of the IANA operations, specifically, the ability to
appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board, and to recall the
entire Board;<br>
The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals introduce new powers for
the community, which include the ability to remove individual
Directors (section 5.5) or recall the entire Board (section 5.6).
These proposals would address the CWG-Stewardship requirement. <br>
<br>
• The IANA Function Review, created to conduct periodic and
special reviews of the IANA Functions, should be incorporated into
the ICANN bylaws;<br>
The CCWG-Accountability proposes to incorporate the review system
defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws,
including the ability to start new reviews (section 6.2, page 60).
Based on your group's proposal, the CCWG introduced a recommendation
to create a new review, based on the requirements you set forth. <br>
<br>
• The CSC, created to monitor the performance of the IANA
Functions and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO,
should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws.<br>
While this specific requirement was not addressed by the
CCWG-Accountability, it would not contradict any of our proposals.
It might be more appropriate if this recommendation was drafted and
specified directly as one of the CWG-Stewardship recommendations. <br>
<br>
• As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the
CCWG-Accountability should not cover ccTLD delegation /
re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the
ccTLD community through the appropriate processes.”<br>
When addressing enhancements to review and appeal mechanisms (both
in sections 4.1 - IRP and 4.2 Reconsideration process), the
CCWG-Accountability initial proposals state that "as requested by
the CWG-Stewardship, decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or
revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal
mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in
coordination with other interested parties."<br>
<br>
• All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the
ICANN bylaws as "fundamental bylaws" requiring community ascent in
order for amendment.<br>
The CCWG Accountability initial proposals describe the scope of the
"fundamental bylaws" in section 3.2.4. It is proposed that the
"Reviews that are part of the CWG-Stewardship’s work – the IANA
Function Review and any others they may require, as well as the
creation of a Customer Standing Committee" would be considered
Fundamental Bylaws. As such, any change of such Bylaws would require
prior approval by the community. <br>
<br>
In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our deep appreciation of
the outstanding work the CWG-Stewardship has conducted and our
confidence that our respective groups' interdependence will be
resolved to the satisfaction of stakeholder needs and expectations.
We remain committed to closely coordinating on any further evolution
of your requirements based on this 2nd round of public comment. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Mathieu<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>