<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- <br>
Hash: SHA1 <br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I sent the following in reply:<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
><br>
> Seems mostly ok. On the IAP, I thought there was also an
element where the proposals may not be aligned and that CWG needed
to also explore its own mechanisms.<br>
><br>
> Also, should i should send it on to the WA 3 - am i
authorized to do so.<br>
><br>
> thanks<br>
><br>
> avri</span><br>
<br>
Got authorization to pass it on in the phone call. And asked for a
day to reply.<br>
<br>
Note I will be reporting on this in the CWG meeting on Thursday, so
would like this sent before then,<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
- -------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
Subject: draft response to Lise and Jonathan<br>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:55:45 +0100<br>
From: Thomas Rickert <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de"><rickert@anwaelte.de></a><br>
To: Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Avri,<br>
we have prepared a response to Lise and Jonathan, which you find
below. As promised, we keep you in the loop. Are you ok with us
sending it as is?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Thomas<br>
<br>
Dear Lise and Jonathan,<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January. It was<br>
helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we
provided<br>
of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was<br>
informative and showed we are working in the same direction.<br>
<br>
<br>
We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship<br>
accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of
that<br>
discussion follows. You can also find details of the session,
including<br>
staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500</a>
(noting<br>
that the draft is a living document and we held our discussions on
19<br>
January.<br>
<br>
<br>
• Budget Accountability and Transparency<br>
While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability
with<br>
regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not
specifically<br>
address the IANA budget. Therefore we encourage the CWG to recommend<br>
measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget, we will<br>
support requests for increased transparency.<br>
<br>
<br>
• Accountability for (re)delegations<br>
To the extent that the Board may take decisions on this area, CCWG
intends<br>
to recommend accountability mechanisms that would be relevant and<br>
supportive. We expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration
process<br>
for Board as well as management/staff decisions.<br>
<br>
<br>
• Independent Review of Board Actions<br>
CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the<br>
independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We
are very<br>
much in tune with CWG approach.<br>
<br>
<br>
• Independent Appeals Panel<br>
We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG
proposals, we<br>
aligned in our thinking/approach.<br>
<br>
<br>
• Control over ICANN Board decisions.<br>
When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members
had<br>
not had chance to review before the meeting. The CCWG is now
considering<br>
options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions. We are
very<br>
aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up
nature<br>
of the ICANN policy decision-making process. Community oversight of
Board<br>
decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a
specific<br>
decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the
Board to<br>
make a decision in the case of inaction.<br>
<br>
<br>
This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for
the<br>
coming weeks.<br>
<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- <br>
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) <br>
<br>
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUx+R/AAoJEOo+L8tCe36H0kUH/0tfzmiRYrLaAjzqU5KygxkO <br>
hIV6T5i5tFfjssevYGIQdRwDgzsaEdYPY763nMXz9vYmgfiB03tlfL0CCCtC4Bxx <br>
d26VdihXAjlNX15aNw8RB9h/fG++VxTn0k3ELGDzwhscuRoaoGLlI7fd3Z971jE8 <br>
KTjUaKJ16qmDs/xO5IK2bS6O+vUi6IBsgmtVFD2rdnImJPT6rGNdZN32MiutR+o+ <br>
vdiYpidU22/oWfb7IjQsIq4GZj6fS32VqGDln4ZVNQRvYan7jZnHC3zH0H+tdJ5M <br>
2zCw/o48NtEPUjLbxZHhy18jyyJ3NLS8sY8Z+ZHeZtP5pn53Sv8YWETxf7NcyC0= <br>
=FHQR <br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>