<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Avri,</div><div>Good Catch</div><div>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.</div><div>I will raise it again wiith clear emphasis at the next ICG meeting 18-19 Sept. </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-09-16 7:19 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I think it was just oversight on our part. At one point I was supposed<br>
to track these things for the CWG in the CCWG, but once the chairs took<br>
over the liaison role with their frequent joint leadership meetings, I<br>
admit I fell asleep on the task and it was only when doing the review of<br>
both documents that the gap became obvious. So, I started talking it up<br>
and decided to put a comment on it.<br>
<br>
Part of the CWG requirement on the CCWG was a mechanism to insure that<br>
the ICANN Names Operational Community would have the same power that<br>
the IETF has to replace its IANA function operator defined in an<br>
ironclad manner under the new accountability mechanisms. Not only did<br>
the CWG recommend that a fundamental bylaw be created that covered the<br>
Separation Cross Community WG (SCWG), but it included the requirement<br>
for the outcome of this group to be approved both by the Board " *and a<br>
community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability**process."<br>
*T*he CWG was not determining the CCWG outcome of a *SM*, but indicated<br>
that whatever Community Mechanism we create, have the power to approve,<br>
or disapprove, the recommendation of the SCWG along with the<br>
Boar*d.****Similar to the CCWG WS1 recommendation itself, it is a<br>
decision that the community and the Board would need to come to<br>
together. ****While not an issue in the CWG comment on CCWG Draft 2, I<br>
believe there is an inconsistency between the CWG report as included in<br>
the ICG aggregated proposal and CCWG Draft 2. The CWG comment on CCWG<br>
indicates that this may no longer be necessary as the other mechanisms<br>
somehow make up for the absence of this direct power. This may indeed<br>
end up the result, but I believe that at the issue needs to be<br>
discussed, and a change needs to be made either in the ICG report,<br>
backing off on the explicit requirement, or in the CCWG's list of<br>
community powers. Of course if we go with the MEM, this may all be moot<br>
as far as the CCWG is concerned, as there would be no community powers<br>
as conceived in Draft 2. Though I expect we would need to then change<br>
the CWG's explicit requirements as defined in the ICG aggregated<br>
proposal. As far as NTIA is concerned, I just think they will be looking<br>
for consistency in our recommendations. I do not believe they care about<br>
such details, as long as we find general agreement on them. thanks avri<br>
<span><br>
> Avri,<br>
><br>
> I was very interested in your comment regarding the need to amend to<br>
> provide for a community power to allow approval of any replacement<br>
> IANA provider in the event of separation. This seems to very directly<br>
> concern the IANA transition itself and the prospect of securing<br>
> certification of the proposal by the NTIA to Congress.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Could you please explain this a bit further in simple language? Are<br>
> you saying that ICG or Stewardship has specified that in the event it<br>
> becomes necessary to replace PTI, then approval (or veto) of that<br>
> choice should be a listed community power of the Sole Member?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Just seeking to understand this issue more clearly.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thank you,<br>
><br>
> Anne<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> **<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*<br>
><br>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *<br>
><br>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*<br>
><br>
> *(T) <a href="tel:520.629.4428" value="+15206294428">520.629.4428</a> | (F) <a href="tel:520.879.4725" value="+15208794725">520.879.4725</a>*<br>
><br>
> *_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:<a href="mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com">AAikman@LRRLaw.com</a>>_**| <a href="http://www.LRRLaw.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.LRRLaw.com</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.lrrlaw.com/</a>>*<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> **<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> * *<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<span>><br>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the<br>
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of<br>
> this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the<br>
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment<br>
> to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any<br>
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any<br>
> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this<br>
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to<br>
> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any<br>
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and<br>
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the<br>
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<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" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>