[CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Jan 9 06:34:54 UTC 2015

Donna et al, Thanks for this.

With regard to the references to the ALAC 
proposal, the ALAC is not particularly wedded to 
many of the details in our proposal. To quote:

In the view of the ALAC, a suitable transition 
proposal will include the following:
- IANA responsibility awarded to ICANN;
- New Board accountability to ensure that 
multistakeholder community can initiate action if 
dissatisfied with IANA performance;
- Independent Appeal process to address perceived errors.
- Doomsday capability to reassign responsibility if all else fails.


At 08/01/2015 09:15 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
>In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG 
>members conducted our own analysis of the 
>comments submitted on the CWG Transition 
>Proposal. Provided below are our conclusions and 
>recommendations for next steps. Also attached is 
>a document we prepared containing key excerpts 
>of comments as they relate to various aspects of the proposal.
>Please accept this information in the spirit 
>that it is offered—not as authoritative but as 
>thhe result of an analysis developed by the RySG for our own purposes.
>We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer any questions.
>RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA CWG
>The RySG believes that the following statements 
>have very strong support in the community and 
>hence can be used to guide future decisions by the CWG:
>A.      The current service of the IANA 
>functions operator is satisfactory and ICANN 
>should initially continue as the operator when the transition occurs.
>B.      The IANA CWG proposal as described in 
>the request for public comments is too complex 
>and does not contain enough detail.
>Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG 
>proposal, there appears to be reasonable support 
>for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some form, although 
>not necessarily as described in the CWG proposal.
>The RySG believes that the following statements 
>need further investigation and/or indicate areas 
>where additional work is warranted:
>          i.            The overall structure of the CWG proposal.
>        ii.            Contract Co.
>       iii.            Internal to ICANN option
>RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps
>1.       Suggestions made by commenters should 
>be evaluated based on the following criteria to 
>identify which ones should be excluded, which 
>ones should definitely be considered further and 
>which ones need further investigation:
>a.       CWG principles
>b.      Would they contribute toward a simpler proposal?
>c.       Results of the two surveys.
>2.       All alternatives to the CWG proposal 
>should be examined in detail, not just the one 
>proposed by the ALAC, to identify what 
>alternatives or elements of the alternatives should be investigated further.
>3.       An extension of the targeted time frame 
>of at least 60 days should be requested from the 
>ICG to allow for continued work and an 
>additional public comment period after 
>reasonable consensus is reached on a proposal 
>for submission to the chartering SOs and ACs.
>4.       The work of the IANA CWG and 
>Accountability CCWG are properly dependent. The 
>IANA CWG should have the opportunity to revisit 
>the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other 
>options once the outputs of Workstream 1 of the 
>Accountability CCWG are provided and consider 
>the implications for accountability as it 
>relates to the performance of the IANA Functions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150109/d99c0b5d/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list