[CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Chuck,

 

I agree that it needs to be expressed as clearly as possible to be useful
for the CCWG.

 

My General category was not meant to be a category as such but rather
something we will depend on regardless of the variants.

 

In any event, I do not feel strongly about how we sort this as long as we
articulate our dependencies as clearly as possible. 

Which I understand to be also your intention.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 15 January 2015 19:56
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements

 

Jonathan,

 

Obtaining input on A-F as you suggest is probably a very good idea for
getting people thinking on this and for the CWG to make sure we include
everything we need.  But I don't think breaking down our input according to
the three categories will be a useful way to present our needs to the CCWG.
This became more obvious to me when I reviewed and commented on the first
version that Avri put into the Google Doc.  For example, I found that the
need for a binding independent appeals panel is common to all three areas,
but is just one requirement for the CCWG that we are dependent on.  Also,
the CCWG probably doesn't need to know what area or areas of our work cause
the dependencies assuming that we can clearly articulate them.

 

I understand that you may have not intended that the categorization be a
part of our presentation to the CCWG but I wanted to point this out just to
make sure.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:48 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements

 

All,

 

I recall from the weekend sessions that we agreed to work on the
"Conditional Accountability" requirements to be developed as part of the CWG
proposal.

And moreover, to the extent that it was possible, to formulate these in such
a way as to guide the work (on work stream 1) of the CCWG next week.

 

I believe Alan Greenberg was going to hold the pen on this but have not seen
anything on list so will make a contribution here to be synthesised with
anything Alan has led or developed.

 

It seems to me that we have three categories as follows:

 

1.    General i.e. work that will be done by the CCWG and on which the CWG
will rely on regardless of the variant proposal it produces.
>From previous correspondence with the CCWG, we know that they have
identified the following areas:

o   Independent Review of Board Actions

o   Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation

o   Independent Appeals Panel

2.    Relating to RFP 3a - A (potentially) limited set of requirements given
the strength of recourse associated with 3a

o   A

o   B

o   C

3.    Relating to RFP 3b - A (potentially) more extensive list of
requirements given the likely integrated nature of the outcome from this
group

o   D

o   E

o   F

 

 

Now, clearly the key question is formulating the bullet points A-F under 3a
and 3 b above and deciding whether 3a is a subset of 3b or whether there are
unique conditions associated with 3a.

 

It will be very helpful to have clear input on A-F above in a form that we
can transmit to the CCWG ahead of their meetings next week.

 

Thank-you

 

 

Jonathan

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150115/276a2289/attachment-0001.html>