<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear CWG-Stewardship, </div><div><br></div><div>On our last CWG-Stewardship call, staff presented a tracking sheet to help monitor the work of the CCWG-Accountability on the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. While the majority of the dependencies have been met, Chuck and others on the CWG had noticed areas of improvement on the Budget section, and there was some discussion last week about the standard of the review for the IRP. </div><div><br></div><div>Please take a look at the attached document and use this mailing list thread to present your assessment of whether or not the dependencies are being met. Per Matthew Shears’ request, I have added a column on the right for comments and observations. </div><div><br></div><div>Considering the timeline, the sooner feedback can be provided to the CCWG, the better. For your convenience, I have attached the latest versions of the relevant sections. For all CCWG-Accountability final report drafts, please see: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report</a>. </div><div><br></div><div>As part of the discussion of the IRP, please refer to some analysis provided by Sidley to the Client Committee mailing list. The first email from Sharon is here: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000371.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000371.html</a>. The second email is a follow-up after a conversation with Becky Burr regarding the IRP: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000373.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000373.html</a>. I’ve copied a key excerpt of this text below and cc’ed Becky so that she can join the conversation if needed. </div><div><br></div><div>“{…] B<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; widows: 1;">ased on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) – or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required? By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal."</span></div><div><br></div><div>Best, </div><div>Grace</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>