[CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG

Wed Feb 3 09:11:00 UTC 2016

Hello James,

No idea how my comment would be seen as proposing a fundamental change. I
will make an attempt to summarize some of my points with 2 questions;
Hopefully you can tell me which of them imply changing the CWG proposal

1. Is it the intent of the CWG's proposal that any CSC charter update and
approval be done by ccNSO and GNSO alone?
2. Since CSC charter would be referenced in the bylaw, is it the intent of
the CWG's proposal that any update to that referenced document should not
follow the normal bylaw change process?

Would appreciate a simple Yes or No to the questions.  If yes, i will like
that you provide reference to the section of the CWG proposal that clearly
indicates such intent (principle).

Regards

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I would support Donnas position here, the CSC was carefully crafted and
> the work of the CWG is closed on that point now I believe. To introduce
> changes along these lines would be a fundamental change in the CSC’s
> lifecycle structure and that would be reopening a closed and agreed item.
>
> -James
>
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <
> Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
> Date: Tuesday 2 February 2016 at 11:45 p.m.
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <
> jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of
> CWG
>
> Hi Seun
>
>
>
> As the lead of the DT for the CSC, I’ve responded to your related
> questions inline below.
>
>
>
> I would also welcome input from Martin who was also a member of the DT for
> the CSC.
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 February 2016 11:30 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of
> CWG
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the share, did a quick read and have a few general
> comments/question:
>
> 1.      Isn't there a way to have the CSC charter separate and not
> incorporated into the bylaw as the bylaw is looking quite bulky. That said,
> I note that it's referred to as Annex D so I assume that is perhaps the
> only reference that would exist in the bylaw?
>
> DA COMMENT:  I believe this is up for discussion of CWG members. While I
> think that it makes sense to have the existence of the CSC contained in the
> bylaws, the charter itself could simply be referenced, particularly given
> it is envisioned that the Charter would be reviewed on a somewhat regular
> basis.
>
> 2.      I believe any change in the CSC charter should involved other
> chartering SO/AC not just be based on the ccNSO and GNSO decision.
>
> DA COMMENT: The mission of the CSC is to ensure continued satisfactory
> performance of the IANA Function for the direct customers of the naming
> services. The primary role of the CSC is to monitor the performance of the
> IANA naming function against agreed service level targets on a regular
> basis. It was the view of the DT that as the direct customers of the naming
> services came from the ccNSO and GNSO, that any changes to the Charter
> should only be ratified by those SOs.
>
> The Charter does provide for input from all ICANN stakeholders through the
> provision of a public comment period associated with an initial review of
> the Charter to be conducted by representatives of the ccNSO and RySG after
> one year of the first meeting of the CSC. Any recommended changes are to be
> ratified by the ccNSO and GNSO.
>
> The Charter also provides that “… thereafter, the Charter will be reviewed
> at the request of the CSC, ccNSO or GNSO and may also be reviewed in
> connection with the IANA Function Review.”
>
> The Charter is currently silent on how any future reviews should be
> conducted and it may make sense that any review requested by the CSC, ccNSO
> or GNSO follow the same form as the initial review in that it be conducted
> by representatives of the ccNSO and RySG and that the “… review is to
> include the opportunity for input from other ICANN stakeholders, via a
> Public Comment process.”
>
> I believe that any review of the CSC Charter conducted in connection with
> the IANA Function Review has a separate process.
>
> 3.      The CCWG proposed process to approve update of any text in the
> bylaw (including CSC charter) should be applied. So I think the charter
> update(depending on whether this will be standard or fundamental bylaw)
> should be subject to board approval.
>
> DA comment: The DT did not believe that Board approval was required for a
> change to the CSC Charter and I do not support any suggestion that this be
> changed at this time.
>
> 4. Some of the decision making does not recognise other community like
> ALAC as part of the decision makers. For instance the decision process for
> SCWG.
>
> 5. Could it be indicated which of the texts goes to fundamental bylaw and
> which one to standard?
>
> Regards
>
> On 2 Feb 2016 6:21 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> A couple of updates since our previous meeting and ahead of our meeting on
> Thursday Feb 4 @ 16h00 UTC.
>
>
>
> We are waiting for the final wording from CWG Accountability in relation
> to our requirements on IANA Budget and IRP but now expect that these will
> be satisfactorily dealt with.
>
> As per Grace’s note on the CCWG agenda for their meeting today, these
> matters were subject to “final reading” by the CCWG today.
>
>
>
> On the series of questions presented by Sidley in preparation for drafting
> the proposed ICANN Bylaws to deal with the work of the CWG Stewardship,
> Grace’s email of Jan 25 sought further input from our group.
>
>
>
> Essentially we have:
>
> a.      Input from relevant DT leads (Thank-you!)
>
> b.      Input from staff
>
> c.      Remaining open questions
>
> Any input to point c above will be helpful.
>
>
>
> The plan (as per our last meeting and captured in Grace’s email of Jan 25) was
> to review and provide input so that responses can be provided to Sidley
> after the Feb 4 Call.
>
> This work to be done via the mailing list by using the ‘track changes’
> feature in Word. Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if
> needed.
>
> If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement on a response, this can
> be discussed further at the next meeting.
>
>
>
> *If you are able to review the document (re-attached for convenience) and
> provide any input over the next 24 hours or so, that will be very helpful.*
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=oZrItGoEGaS03omqLFaFXVQ6qZVX3ovRDY89oqmEWOc&s=_4RgEuOarPhzBaAGOAA6E3ZHasnvA6pw9ZAj1Io2hrI&e=>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160203/8577a7a4/attachment.html>