[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #50 - 25 August

[Avri Doria]

On 25-Aug-15 09:18, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It has to do with the results from a SCWG.  Which while defined in some
> detail in ANNEX L (page 198 of the ICG proposal), also refers  to the

page 108

> CCWG model. 
>
> - the use of remediation as determined in the CCWG if the Board rejects
> an IFR recommendation for a SCWG
> - the approval of a SCWG determined new operator selection
>
> Beyond that there needs to be the fundamental bylaw that refers to both
> the IFR and the SCWG.  I think that is an implementation issue.
>
> One thing I had forgotten about is the statement & conditional footnote
> in the CWG proposal that says:
>
>> The selection of a new operator to perform the IANA Naming Functions
>> or other separation process will be subject to approval by the ICANN
>> Board, and a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability
>> process.83
>> 83 This community mechanism could include ICANN membership, if ICANN
>> were to become a membership organization per the CCWG-Accountability
>> work efforts.
> We have not included this among the community powers of the SMCM.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 25-Aug-15 05:15, James Gannon wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> For those of us who couldn’t make the call could the below section of
>> the notes be elaborated on?
>> Its not very clear if this is referring to the IFO/PTI separation
>> process post-IFR or to some other process.
>> If its referring to the SCWG as defined by the CWG I don’t understand
>> why that would be a CCWG task rather than a CWG task.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Aug 2015, at 08:49, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org
>>> <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *3 CWG requirement on Separation CCWG*
>>>
>>> - Stems from ICG report that states that separation process is kicked off by a working group based on CCWG proposal. Should we build 
>>> separate process or can we use existing mechanism to set up group?
>>> _Feedback:_
>>> - It is too early to discuss separation and for CCWG to get involved in matters. Suggest that Cochairs discuss with CWG leadership.
>>> - Where is it noted that we need to specify process?
>>> - ICG proposal states that CCWG needs to define process. 
>>> ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send an email to group with references included. Put status of discussion in email and seek confirmation of 
>>> approach or go with different proposal.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


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