[CWG-RFP3] Brief comments after Frankfurt

Tue Nov 25 13:52:03 UTC 2014

Dear all,
I hope this email finds you well after the very active meeting in Frankfurt. Personally, it was my first time as participant in a CCWG and I was glad to see so much cooperation and honest exchange of views. Thank you also to the CWG leadership and secretariat, who made an excellent job in putting all the bits and pieces together against the clock and shaped up the current documents, which provide a very good starting point.
We would like to share with you some comments/remarks (also discussed by the group in Frankfurt) that from our perspective would be useful to ensure are captured in the next draft of the proposal.
1) To ensure coordination between work on accountability CWG and IANA CWG (suggestions were requested via the list by Jonathan) the following placeholders discussed in Frankfurt could be also communicated to the Accountability CWG in due course:
·         Placeholder for governing documents (MoU, AoC, Changes to the Bylaws, assurance that changes agreed in the IANA transition are turned into real commitments, ex IFOA, SLAs…). This item was included in several straw mans.
·         Placeholder for the IANA backstop function, for the Accountability group to replace the stewardship authority that the USG retained as a result of the IANA functions contract (and beyond the role of the IANA contracting entity)
·         Placeholder for the appeal/redress mechanism (as this seems to be a rather straightforward example of external accountability to be also discussed in work stream #1 of the Accountability CWG)
2) The IANA functions document dated 19 Nov includes 5 functions, being the first the "Approval function of changes to the root zone". It could be made clearer in the CWG proposal how the new architecture addresses this verification-authorisation role. The current flow-chart also does not include Function 5 (backstop fx).
3) To avoid confusion (as the flow-chart is not supported by any narrative) it would be desirable to insert the term "Multistakeholder" before "IANA Periodic Review Team" and replace the "e.g.:  every 5 years" with "frequency to be determined" or include wording along the lines of “it could be highlighted in the proposal that the periodic review team also has the ability to act upon issues flagged by the Customer Standing Committee or other information with frequency to be determined but ensuring continuity of the review function”.
4) In the appeals panel, it could be clarified that both the IANA Customer Standing Committee and the Periodic Review Team can initiate an arbitration procedure if the operator does not agree to implement recommendations. Is otherwise pulling the plug on the contract the only remedy? How are instructions or recommendations coming from the customers and the multi-stakeholder body enforced? As the flow-chart shows now  it seems that the only impact of the Customer Committee and of the subsequent escalation to the Review Team towards any issue of suboptimal performance of the operator, has to do with changes in the contract.  If the IANA operator is, for instance, interpreting policy and implementing on its own account, how do customers or the review team enforce any decision to stop the operator and how is the operator activity put on hold pending resolution of a conflict?
5) As regards the contracting function, we tend to favour the opinion of colleagues who have noted that there needs to be (i) a limited term for the contract; (ii) an open and transparent beauty contest (RFP); and (iii) no presumption or renewal of the contract to provide performance incentives.
6) As regards what some members and participants have echoed in respect to the two processes (accountability and IANA transition) being interrelated and interdependent, the straw mans included some useful wording in this sense and it may be useful not to dismiss it: "The transition must not take place until (1) the requisite accountability mechanisms have been identified by the CWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“Accountability CCWG”), (2) mechanisms that the community determines are necessary pre-transition have been put in place and (3) agreements and other guarantors are in place to ensure timely implementation of mechanisms that the Accountability CCWG decides may be implemented  post-transition".
Besides content, I have a little question on logistics:  We heard that, possibly, a second face-to-face meeting of the IANA CWG might be organised. Is that only a rumour or shall be stand ready to travel again in the future?
Thank you all in advance and have a good week.
Best regards
(Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra
European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
Unit D1 - International relations
Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; ".eu"; Internet and Human Rights
Desk - Iran, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen
Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447
E: Camino.Manjon at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.Manjon at ec.europa.eu>

The information and views set out in this email do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

[http://thinkbeforeprinting.org/struct/signature-1.gif]
© thinkBeforePrinting.org Campaign

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141125/29a1a15b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 566 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141125/29a1a15b/image001-0001.gif>