[CWG-Stewardship] Interlinking and dependency between CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability

Wed Dec 10 22:51:13 UTC 2014

All,

A critical area that needs our attention is the interlinking and dependency
between the work of this group i.e. the Cross Community Working Group on
Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the related Cross Community
Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).

Please see attached for a document (copied into the body of the email below)
to get this discussion moving.

Thank-you,

Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr

Co-chairs

--

Potential areas for interlinking and dependency between work of the Cross
Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and
the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
(CCWG-Accountability)

Date: 10 December 2014

From: CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.

The linkage between the work of the CWG-Stewardship and the enhanced
accountability of ICANN has been recognised in a number of ways, including
explicitly by the CCWG-Accountability itself. Indeed, Work Stream 1 of the
CCWG-Accountability will focus on the mechanisms for enhancing ICANN
accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame
of the IANA Stewardship Transition. 

In an initial conversation between us (the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship)
and the co-chairs of the
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter+and+Drafting+Team
> Drafting Team for the CCWG-Accountability it was clear that input from the
CWG-Stewardship on matters for Work Stream 1 would be helpful. This document
aims to define those matters (derived from the draft transition proposal)
and to seek input from the CWG-Stewardship on these.

The CWG-Stewardship published its draft transition proposal for names on
December 1st 2014 (
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e
n.pdf>
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en
.pdf).

This document contains three elements that may be specifically relevant to
the work of the CCWG-Accountability as follows:

.         Section 3.3 - "Independent Review of Board Actions - the
CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain
circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed". If this
were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a
change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP.

.         Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and
re-delegation requests. This is still under consideration by the
CWG-Stewardship but 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. This would
probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws.

.         Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel - The CWG-Stewardship
is proposing that an independent review panel 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 such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal
and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require
changes to the ICANN Bylaws.

In addition to these elements the CWG in its public consultation has
requested input on an alternate ``ICANN only`` proposal that is being
considered by a number of participants in the CWG-Stewardship:

Input on a specific (ICANN) alternative solution

The CWG is also seeking input on a specific alternative option which has
been raised within the CWG which envisages all NTIA responsibilities being
transferred to ICANN. This option would require an increase in ICANN
accountability to its constituent communities and require the adoption of
binding arbitration mechanisms (such recommendations may be beyond the scope
of the CWG and probably rest with the CCWG-Accountability or other groups).
Note that this integrated option would impact the future ease or ability to
tender for another IANA Functions Operator (other than ICANN). However, to
ensure there has been a proper consideration of this option, the CWG, would
appreciate input from the community regarding support, or not, for this
concept.

If this solution were to go forward it would probably require significant
changes to ICANN's accountability mechanisms and therefore the ICANN Bylaws
to ensure that e.g. the ICANN Board could not overrule the MRT in matters
related to the performance of IANA Functions or at the very least can be
effectively sanctioned for doing so.

For your convenience we have also attached a copy of the Introduction of the
CWG public consultation to this document as it covers all of these points in
greater detail (Annex 1).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141210/d70bc7dd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Potential areas for Overlap between the CWG & the CCWG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 54272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141210/d70bc7dd/PotentialareasforOverlapbetweentheCWGtheCCWG-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Potential areas for Overlap between the CWG & the CCWG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 442786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141210/d70bc7dd/PotentialareasforOverlapbetweentheCWGtheCCWG-0001.pdf>