[CCWG-ACCT] CWG input to our group
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 16:09:26 UTC 2015
Would you care to elaborate on the specific disagreement(s)?
Greg
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> Just so that we get this on the record, I disagree with the summary of the
> two CCWG co-Chairs provided to the CWG.
>
> el
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 16:23, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you may know, the CWG has started today an intense work period of 2
> days. You will find the notes of the 1st session below. Thomas and I were
> invited to provide an update on the CCWG.
>
> You will also note that the CWG puts emphasis on their expectations
> towards our work. We can expect a consolidation of these requirements to be
> sent to us shortly after their 2 days of work.
>
> For illustration purposes, the first session already addressed :
> - budget requirement
>
> *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we
> need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA
> operations costs to project level and below as needed.
>
> - ccTLD delegation appeals
>
> *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B
> survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their
> own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not
> required as part of the transition proposal).
>
> - also mention of a periodic review of IANA performance
>
> These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
>
>
> Best
> Mathieu
>
> -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes,
> Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #35 - 13 April Date : Mon, 13
> Apr 2015 14:47:01 +0000 De : Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> <brenda.brewer at icann.org> Pour : cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> <mime-attachment.gif>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13
> April are available here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576
> *Action Items*
>
> *Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language*
>
> *Notes*
>
> *1. Opening Remarks *
>
> ·
>
> · Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for
> two days.
>
> · 6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions
> with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs.
>
> · Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination
> in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit.
>
> · Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both
> groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further
> refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of
> the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well.
>
> · There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have
> therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N.
>
> 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct:
>
> ·
>
> · ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency
> around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)
>
> · Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a
> confidence vote option)
>
> · Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a
> 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)
>
> · Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related
> issues)
>
> The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand
> from their end.
>
> *2. CCWG-Accountability Update* (Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill)
>
> The group has been further developing its building blocks for the
> accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include
> Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the
> bylaws.
>
> CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG
> is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented
> under CA law.
>
> CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority
> would be the CWG requirements.
>
> If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input,
> that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing.
>
> All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the
> CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work
> is ongoing and satisfactory for now.
>
> Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw
>
> *3. DT-O (budget)*
>
> · DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier
> Calvez
>
> · Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its
> costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an
> itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the
> CWG hasn't decided on a structure.
>
> · Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are
> items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG
> proposes as a solution.
>
> · No disagreement with DT-O recommendations
>
> · CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that
> needs to be addressed with the CCWG?
>
> · Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA?
> Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal
>
> · If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the
> veto?
>
> · The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the
> community veto tool
>
> *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we
> need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA
> operations costs to project level and below as needed.
>
> *4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)*
>
> · Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a
> ccTLD appeals mechanism
>
> · Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received)
>
> · Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed
> with designing an appeals mechanism now.
>
> · So recommendation is to not pursue this now
>
> · The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism
> regarding re/delegation at a later date.
>
> · For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is
> an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and
> provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be
> appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG.
>
> *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B
> survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their
> own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not
> required as part of the transition proposal).
>
> *5. DT-N (Periodic Review)*
>
> · These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
>
> · First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that
>
> · Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the
> calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has
> been dealt with
>
> · The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results
> indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the
> CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment
>
> · Does the review expand to address IANA policy?
>
> · Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period.
>
> *Action* (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years"
> language
>
> *6. AOB*
>
> *7. Closing Remarks*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Portion de message joint>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150413/99557aa3/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list