[CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

Thu Jan 21 14:35:47 UTC 2016

This is what we said to the CCWG (in December 2015) in relation to the most recent (third) proposal on the subject of the adequacy or not of their work on the IRP:

The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI.  The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI.  

Conclusion – As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed.

So, we (with the help of Sidley) provided for it to be dealt with in various ways. It seems to me that the key question we need to answer is, whether or not the current way being contemplated is consistent with what we required on the basis of our December communication?

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 January 2016 11:07
To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

I believe the CWG normally make such check (also the lawyers does) periodically and I expect that the co-chairs do have some coordinations as well. Perhaps the exercise can be more prudent than it currently is, but again one needs to ensure to make such checks when a specific direction is envisaged/taken by the CCWG and not just based on comments by individuals.

That said, if there are indications that CCWG does not seem to go inline with the CWG requirement, those who are in both groups could flag there here. 

As to the specific reference you made relating to IRP, considering that this has gone through second reading (?) Perhaps it's good to make a quick check. I personally don't see any inconsistency yet though.

Regards

On 21 Jan 2016 11:38, "Matthew Shears" <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> > wrote:

Hi

I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal.  The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters.  I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued.

Matthew

On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote:

Hi Paul,

I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards.

We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow.

Best,
Lise
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24
To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.

-jg

On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>  on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>  on behalf of paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> > wrote:

At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in
advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.

We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?

Best

Paul

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 <http://cdt.org> 
E: mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  | T: +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987> 

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

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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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/20160121/23f184e6/attachment.html>