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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 00:30:18 UTC 2016


On 3 Feb 2016 23:22, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk> wrote:
>
>  So the charter does need to be flexible and certainly should not be
locked down in a bylaw – fundamental or standard.
>
SO: If the understanding is that the charter would not be recognised as
part of the bylaw document in anyway then that's fine by me. If that was
what Donna was implying in his response to item 3 of my previous message
then I think my concern on this can be considered moot.

>
I’d even wonder whether it should be detailed in the ICANN-PTI contract,
except to note that it should be seen as the framework for resolving
problems (or, if it fails to get issues remedied, to escalate).
>
SO: I agree; I think it makes sense indeed use to use the contract to
define it and not the bylaw. That said, even if the contract is used, I am
of the opinion that a charter update should involve decisional
participation of at least the GNSO/RySG, ALAC and GAC which are the
distinct communities that exists within ICANN.

While I understand that there may be need to be flexible on the charter for
operational reasons, section(s) of the charter relating to powers of CSC
and composition of CSC should be subject to approval of the communities
listed above.

Regards

>
>
> ·         As such, while it might be appropriate to make reference to the
CSC in the bylaws, it should probably only be that the ccNSO and RySG/GNSO
(delete as appropriate) should work together to establish such a committee.
>
SO: I'd delete GNSO as I think the ccNSO and RySG would be applicable in
the context of the so called "direct customers"and I hope this would be
updated as a number of sections in the document shared referred to GNSO.

>
>
> ·         I also wonder how much needs to be written down in an ICANN-PTI
contract.  The main CSC role will be monitoring the performance of PTI, in
particular how well it is fulfilling it service level obligations (and
understanding where there are problems associated with meeting them).  The
draft charter gives examples of escalation processes/steps.  It is because
I see a lot of escalation to be a case-by-case decision (which is why I
think that the action followed should not be too heavily specified.  I
think that this is the only place where I diverge a bit from Chuck’s
analysis:  CSC was conceived as a committee of experts from customer
organisations who would recognise where a failure was force majeure but of
no serious consequence and when it was serious in implications and
represented a systemic failure.  I do not think that this can be written in
bylaws or contracts satisfactorily.
>
SO: I agree

Regards

>
>
> ·         Hence for the include in the ICANN-PTI contract I would be
inclined to suggest:
>
>
>
> o   An obligation on PTI to provide monthly reports to the CSC on
performance against service level obligations and trends (with an
explanation of deterioration of performance or failure to comply)
>
> o   An obligation on PTI to discuss performance with the CSC on a monthly
basis
>
> o   An obligation on PTI and its Board to work with CSC to address
problems
>
> o   An obligation on ICANN to respond to the CSC, should the CSC consider
it necessary to raise concerns directly with ICANN
>
> o   A recognition that, should CSC not be able to address and resolve its
concerns, it will escalate the issue(s) to the ccNSO and GNSO for decisions
on further action, if avenues to resolve issues have been tried and failed.
>
>
>
> ·         I would agree that the CSC probably needs to develop its
charter to cover remedial action and escalation, but I would note that we
should recognise that the DT-C work cited examples of the sort of processes
that could be followed:  I certainly do not see it as prescriptive except
that it should seek to exhaust channels.  Recognising as fundamental the
role of CSC to help resolve issues and giving examples of escalation action
could be helpfully covered in the charter.
>
>
>
> I’ve annotated the “staff analysis” spreadsheet with comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna
> Sent: 02 February 2016 23:45
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <
jrobinson at afilias.info>
>
> Cc: 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] 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160204/d7d585f8/attachment.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list