[CWG-Stewardship] Updated revision of the accountability dependencies

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Jan 18 16:27:24 UTC 2015 

Hi,

Have gone through the note and
- accepted all the changes made before this pass
- made some changes to answer the comments.

Figure I should sent it in real soon now.

avri

On 18-Jan-15 16:14, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in Frankfurt, and no, I have not distributed it yet.  Took a nap
> instead.
>
> Matheiu's note through 

sometime my typos embarrass me - threw me for a loop

> me for a loop as it required more writing so decdied to think about it
> on the flight.  Decided that for now, it is is better explaining than
> trying to add to add a lot of text.  This is just a draft.
>
> I think the point is that there is uncertainty about the solution path
> and that there is uncertainty as to whether the IAP is something that
> is common between ICANN accountability mechanisms or an free standing
> solution.
>
> I would be happy to deliver it as is.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 18-Jan-15 05:38, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Avri, Chuck and others.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I have provided some minor tweaks / edits.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Avri, I suspect that you are now in Frankfurt. Please confirm as to
>> whether or not this has been distributed to the CCWG?
>>
>> If not, I suggest we agree a deadline – midday UTC today? And then
>> Lise or myself transmit it to the ICG via the chairs.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Alternatively, it can be transmitted via you (please remind me if you
>> have a “formal” role of liaison between the groups?)
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr]
>> *Sent:* 17 January 2015 20:22
>> *To:* Avri Doria
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Thomas Rickert
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated revision of the
>> accountability dependencies
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Thanks for this useful work. This is a great starter of a concrete
>> discussion about the inter relation between CWG and CCWG
>>
>> I have provided several comments in the Google Docs to anticipate
>> questions that the CCWG might have while reading it. This is in the
>> hope to spare us some back and forth later.
>>
>> I think it will be quite important to demonstrate :
>> - how these topics relate to IANA accountability issues on the one
>> side (to provide the CCWG with context),
>> - and why they could (or should) not be dealt with as IANA specific
>> accountability mechanisms.
>>
>> I look forward to looking at this in more details in Frankfurt.
>>
>> Best
>> Mathieu
>>
>> Le 17/01/2015 17:33, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I have attached a snapshot of the Accountability dependency doc
>>     found at:
>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn8Pvc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn8Pvc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>     I have noticed a fair number of people checking it out, but very
>>     few making comments.  This version is the result of Chuck's and
>>     my edits trying to make sure we captured issues that had been
>>     raised.  It is only a snapshot revison as there is recognition
>>     that as we dig deeper in the proposed solution we may find other
>>     dependency issues.
>>
>>     Want to make sure that those who will not or can not use Drive
>>     docs would still have a chance to view it before it was sent to
>>     CCWG-Accountability.  I have attached several versions {docx,
>>     odt, pdf}
>>
>>     I am in the Dulles airport for the next 5 hours on my way to
>>     Frankfurt for the CCWG meeting.  I would like to send it out to
>>     them before I take off if at all possible.
>>
>>     I would also make me feel more comfortable to have at least one
>>     of the co- chairs give leave to send this to CCWG before doing
>>     so, but given that it is the weekend and that the Accountability
>>     meeting is on Monday, am loathe to wait too long.  the co-chairs,
>>     have incidentally had full edit access to the document, but they
>>     have not taken advantage, not that they needed to.
>>
>>     I will add header and footer for proper presentation before
>>     sending it.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>
>>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *****************************
>> Mathieu WEILL
>> AFNIC - directeur général
>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>> *****************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150118/14f4f415/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
?CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies - Draft
The following are dependencies on ICANN accountability that the models being discussed in the CWG-Stewardship have discovered to date. Some may be specific to a particular model or variant of that model.


1. Budget Accountability[a][b]


 Currently it is impossible to understand the actual costs of IANA, including its share of ICANN overhead costs and the breakout cost of the various services provided by ICANN in support of the different operational communities. CWG-Stewardship needs this level of accountability moving forward in its work in understanding the comparative cost or simply the cost of operation of the options or variants being considered. This will remain an ongoing stewardship dependency, especially in any internal solution for transition.  
2. Accountability for (re)delegations


We need the Accountability CCWG to provide accountability mechanisms and processes that registry operators (c’s & g’s) and possibly governments in the case of ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and redelegation decisions are not in line with approved procedure or policy or for governments local law.  Note that the accountability needed in this regard may not directly relate to IANA functions per se; for example, in the case of gTLD (re)delegations the actual (re)delegation decision would not be made by the IANA functions operator and the decision would be made before a request is ever sent to the operator.  But it is essential for registry operators (c’s & g’s) to have a recourse mechanism if needed whether it occurs before, during or after the actual performing of the IANA services.  


It should also be noted that the accountability mechanism(s) may be different for gTLDs and ccTLDs.  With regard to ccTLD (re)delegation, what is the relation between ICANN accountability and national accountability in (re)delegation procedures?
[c][d][e][f]


It is recognized that this item could be related to item 4 below and in the case of ccTLDs to items 3 and/or 5 as well.
3. Independent Review of Board Actions[g]


Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to be defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions Panel would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretion.


It is possible that this could be used for item 2 above in the case of ccTLDs.




4.   Independent Appeals Panel


An independent review panel is needed 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 the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the appeal process.


This could be used for item 2 above.


5. Control over ICANN Board decisions.


The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, or to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an IANA-related decision).


This could be used in item 2 above for ccTLDs.


Page                                                                                         17 Jan 2015
[a]Does the CWG require global Icann budget accountability or IANA budget accountability ? And is it a matter of transprency, or an ability to review / redress the budget ? If it is simply transparency, then separate accounting might be enough, and within the remit of the CWG ?
Not sure also that review/redress of IANA budget should follow same mechanisms as overall Icann budget (it might dilute the issue).
[b]well at this point, in order to do the transition we need ICANN budget transparency on the IANA budget.  Since they are not separate.  Also an internal model would require this.
[c]For many ccTLD managers or local governments, it would be inacceptable that appeal mechanisms for delegation  redelegations be outside of their jurisdidictions. Therefore I wonder if requesting work from CCWG on this aspect would be appropriate.
[d]Could you have this limited to procedure and not policy, since I agree most government will not accept any decisions regarding the actual delegation redelegation decision made outside their jurisdiction. But it might be valuable to have a mechanism if ICANN don't comply with a request from a registry or a govrnment.
[e]That could certainly be an option. Worth testing the idea with ccTLD or government reps.  
 
Mathieu Weill 
--------------- 
Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
[f]replaced decisions with procedures.  does that help?
[g]It would be great to provide illustration of how this would be concern related to IANA. Maybe a decision to approve a policy to be applied by IANA ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG-Stewardshipaccountabilityissues-150118-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 84964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150118/14f4f415/CWG-Stewardshipaccountabilityissues-150118-1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG-Stewardshipaccountabilityissues--150118-1.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 176963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150118/14f4f415/CWG-Stewardshipaccountabilityissues--150118-1-0001.rtf>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list