[CWG-Stewardship] Wrap up from Bylaws call

[avri doria]

On 09-Apr-16 19:38, Martin Boyle wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> 13:  I must admit I have always seen "consumers of the IANA naming functions (as distinct from the ICANN community at large) as specifically the registry operators.  This is an important distinction - the SOW is heavily focussed on the needs of the direct customers and is a technical performance document.  Yes, there might be an impact on the customers of the registries and on end users, but that is the chain of accountability, isn't it?
>
> There was also some more recent discussion about decisions made affecting the IANA functions operation - again my memory was that, while the wider community would be consulted, changes would not be implemented in face of opposition from the direct customers.

I though the question was trying to distinguish between 'consumers of' 
in the reviews and 'direct customers' in the CSC sense.  And in the
discussion of the reviews, while the direct customers were given a
larger role with extra seats on all the review mechanism's teams, the
broader definition of consumer was used in the review, as we are all
consumers.

> 16:  Did I miss something on this?  I thought that the initiation of the Special IFR was quite clearly defined in paragraph 303 of the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  And paragraph 304 proposes that the requirement to conduct and facilitate the periodic and special IANA Functions Review would be articulated in the ICANN Bylaws...
>
> I would have no problems about the ccNSO and GNSO going through some form of escalation process with the wider community, should they consider this appropriate, but the thing about the Special IFR is that it is looking at addressing failures in delivery of a vital service.  It certainly seems to me that there is a fundamental difference here between the Special and Periodic Reviews.

Not understanding your question.  Yes, they are initiated differently,
and indeed the answer is somewhat wrong in indicating the only
difference being the initiation mechanisms because the SIFR also may
have a narrower scope in being focused on the problem, but I do not
understand the point you are making.

>
> 20:  I agree with the response.  In the case where an RfP becomes necessary, having some experience in managing such processes is probably helpful.  But the underlying point is that this is essentially a technically focussed role:  it is more important that the members of the SCWG understand the issues of delivering the IANA functions operation and the needs of the direct customers than the mechanics of running an RfP:  if that is required, couldn't this be met through co-opting people with the necessary expertise?

Are you indicating that extra requirements should be stated in the
bylaws beyond the RFP experience requirement?

>
> 22:  Paragraph 399 requires that an ICANN Board decision not to approve be for SCWG recommendations approved by supermajority of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils.  This would seem to be logical given the direct impact on registries - it is all about delivery of the service and conformity with agreed policy.  It would also be in line with discussions about having agreement from registries for material changes.
>
> As others have said, a CWG (of which the SCWG is one) works by consensus:  why should the SCWG be an exception?

While consensus is required in the case of most CWGs, I thought that
there was always the possibility in CWGs that a decsision could be made
by majority.  In GNSOp PDPs, this means that the Board can reject with a
lower threshold, I am not sure what we determined for this case in CWGs.

Thanks for the questions.

avri


>
>
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
> Sent: 09 April 2016 05:08
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Wrap up from Bylaws call
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 04-Apr-16 18:38, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>> Following the presentation from Sharon, Lise asked for the three key 
>> DT leads (Donna for CSC, Chuck for Budget and Escalation; Avri for 
>> Reviews and Separation Process)
> Attached are the draft responses for IFR/SIFR and SCWG (ref 18 & 19)
>
> Also can be found in
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hNy8krPSZVYTBUGkVUck74NDnPLR5i9IPvfZW1KaKQ0/edit?usp=sharing>
> and still open for comments and further suggestions.
>
> These responses were developed by Matt and me and posted to DT-N for 24 hrs.  There were no comments from the DT. 
> I admit it was done at the very last minute and not everyone in the DT might have had the time to review
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus