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

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Wed Feb 3 18:06:02 UTC 2016 

+ 1  CSC has to be seen in the broader structure associated with PTI in 
which CSC has a very specific function per Donna's points below.

On 02/02/2016 22:16, James Gannon 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 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, 
> Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>>
> Date: Tuesday 2 February 2016 at 11:45 p.m.
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>, Jonathan Robinson 
> <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" 
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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> 
> [mailto: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 
> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160203/fb22f389/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list