[Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline

Thu Jan 15 08:26:18 UTC 2015

Alissa

Thankj you very much for that  explanation

However, I draw your attention to the part of the CCWG Charter as ststed
below:
Quote

“In the discussions around the accountability process, the CCWG-Accountabili
ty will proceed with two Work

Streams:

·     *Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability
that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA
Stewardship Transition*;

Whereas

·             *Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics
for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may
extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition*

*In that sense , ICG is expected to receive the results of activities of
Work Stream 1 .No doubt the activities of that Work Stream should include
but not limited to  cover the outcome of  the CWG accountability part on
naming . *

*Moreover, Work Stream 1 shall also receive the inputs from **for **CRISP(
for numbers ) **; and  from **IANAPLAN.( foir protocol and parameters ) .*

*In other words all accountabilities relating to Naming, Numbers , and
proptocol including parapametrs ,irrespective their transmission to ICG as
You have mentioned , must be seen together in a pachkage by CCWG under Work
Stream 1. .Without that information from CCWG the accountability actions
referred to in WS1 IANA TRANSITION WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.*

*This is an issue that must be discussed in CCWG thoroughly.*

*Moreover, I do not understand the term “ CONDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY” the
accountability is not coherenet and understandable with such qualification.*

*In addition the results of CWG ,efven if it come to ICG at the end of
Januar , it must have the consensus of community . I have doubt that
community would have sufficient time to comment on the output of CWG.*

*I therefroe see a major difficulty here that such a proposal may come from
CWG at the end of Jan. 2015 without being sufficiently discussed by the
community and  not reached consensus.*

*We are rushing to do something which may have serious inconsistencies .  *

*Regards*

*Kavouss *

2015-01-15 7:49 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> Agreed.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>  Thanks Alissa,
>
>
>
> I think this is spot on.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Keith Drazek
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM
> *To:* ICG
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
>
>
>
> Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the
> relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran
> the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and
> make sure we are all on the same page.
>
>
>
> In our RFP <
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf>
> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational
> communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was
> convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP
> response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it
> was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN.
>
>
>
> RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to
> the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal
> that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send
> it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals
> that are missing the oversight and accountability component.
>
>
>
> We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the
> communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the
> last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest
> of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal
> for submission to NTIA <
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>.
> As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be
> complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not
> be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG.
>
>
>
> Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common
> is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps
> that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but
> not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other
> bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For
> example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it
> expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might
> outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN
> proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects
> other parties to make.
>
>
>
> I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have
> this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish
> the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We
> have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and
> we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will
> send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus
> if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns
> out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both
> the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have
> to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150115/87c57ba5/attachment-0001.html>