[CCWG-ACCT] AGENDA & DOCS - Meeting #11 - Mon, 9 Feb (ICANN 52)

Mon Feb 9 00:49:42 UTC 2015

Dear Kavouss,

Indeed as you point out this is just for information and is not intended to direct an output from our group. 

Best,

Mathieu Weill
---------------
Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

> Le 8 févr. 2015 à 18:02, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Mathieu
> Thank you very much for the kind effort
> Comments from Kavouss
> What are the benefits of discussing  these note .I have no information about  the misalignment between the schedule of CCWG and CWG noir I can identify the source or reasons for that. Consequently, it may not help to find out whom we have to blame and there is no point to refer to what has happened
> In regard with the  coordination actions being performed ,there is no need either to say about what we have done or what co chairs have done.
> Thanks to those efforts
> As far as timeline is concerned, that issue does not require any discussion. They have done what they expected to be done
> With respect to :
> "Legal advice can be obtained as shown in the timeline.
> Ok so far so good .This is just an information and no discussion is warranted
> "Consensus can be reached in the community on a proposal as shown in the timeline."
> How we could envisage whether or not consensus could be obtained
> "'The chartering Stakeholder Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) are able to approve the proposal in the 21 days shown in the timeline"
> I have doubt about the practicability to that chartering organization could approve the results within that time limit. Let me at least take an example
> How GAC could approve the output without having a physical ( f2f ) meeting?
>  
> "Next steps : 
> Still expects to base its proposal including the WS1 recommendations. 
> 
> "Then it will hopefully be able to quickly finalize a transition proposal  that could include the recommendations of the CCWG Work Stream 1 recommendations and that has the strong support of all major components of the multistakeholder community."
> How we would be able to comment on that wishful thinking ?
> With regard to the section relating to proposal.
> What is the point to discuss their proposal in CCWG
> I suggest that we take note of your NOTE and forward it to WPs to examine
>  whether they might have something to do about these statements
> 
> In summary no discussion on the NOTE. However, we sincerely appreciate your actions and collections of comments/statement
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> 2015-02-08 16:34 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> In anticipation of item 2 of our agenda tomorrow, I have reviewed the CWG's discussion document and took some notes of what I found as most relevant for our group. You will find these notes below FYI. This is intended to facilitate tomorrow's discussions and of course open for comments. 
>> 
>> Best
>> Mathieu
>> ---------------------------------
>> PROCESS : 
>> 
>> Mentions the impact of the delay in starting the CCWG
>> The misalignment of the IANA CWG’s and the Accountability CCWG’s schedules created significant issues for both groups and has negatively impacted the CWG’s ability to complete the development of a transition proposal."
>> 
>> Coordination mentioned as one of the actions taken in response to these conclusions 
>> The co-chairs have undertaken discussion with the ICG and the CCWG to revise the CWG schedule in order to present it at the Singapore meeting.
>> Steps were taken to improve and further extend coordination of the work of the CWG and the work of the CCWG Accountability, in particular its work on work stream 1.
>> 
>> Mentions the revised timeline developed in coordination
>> A revised timeline for the delivery of a CWG transition has been developed, coordinated with the CCWG and communicated to the ICG.  The revised timeline can be found at (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52887763/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422991643000&api=v2 ).  Note that it shows a best case scenario that provides for delivering a proposal to the ICG in June 2015, assuming that the following risk factors can be minimized:
>> Legal advice can be obtained as shown in the timeline.
>> Consensus can be reached in the community on a proposal as shown in the timeline.
>> The chartering Stakeholder Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) are able to approve the proposal in the 21 days shown in the timeline.
>>  
>> Next steps : 
>> Still expects to base its proposal including the WS1 recommendations. 
>> 
>> "Then it will hopefully be able to quickly finalize a transition proposal  that could include the recommendations of the CCWG Work Stream 1 recommendations and that has the strong support of all major components of the multistakeholder community."
>> 
>> 
>> PROPOSALS :
>> 
>> The Independent Appeals Panel is a common point between both models being discussed (Contract, Co. vs Trust model).
>> Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) –All decisions and actions (including deliberate inaction) of the IANA Functions Operator that affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database would be subject to an independent and binding appeals panel. The appeals mechanism should also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies are applied.  Note that the appeals mechanism for ccTLDs, if any, may look very different than for gTLDs.
>> 
>> One of the option, the Internal Bylaw model, rests upon the principle of a "Golden Bylaw". This has strong relationship with our WS1 requirement (WP1) regarding oversight of the community in case of change of the Bylaws (or certain sections of the Bylaws). 
>> This model would also include the MRT within the Icann Bylaws. Same for the IAP.  
>> 
>> The Internal Trust option creates a Guardian of the Trust, which could be a cross community WG. There might be a connection with the community empowerment mechanisms the CCWG is setting up to explore. 
>> 
>> "External options" are less connected to the CCWG since accountability issues are transferred outside Icann, but the issues may remain similar. One might suggest that the work on definitions & scoping, as well as some of the requirements discussed in Frankfurt, could be helpful to further work on these options. 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 08/02/2015 18:59, Alice Jansen a écrit :
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> In preparation for your meeting # 11 (ICANN 52) – Mon, 9 Feb - 16:45 to 19:45 SGT/08:45-11:45 UTC – please find below a proposed agenda. Documents/links are included (note: the attached engagement slide-deck is a revised version).
>>> Thanks
>>> Best regards
>>> Alice 
>>> ---
>>> AGENDA
>>>> 1. Welcome & roll call & SOI 
>>>> 2. Interactions with CWG 
>>>>      - update by Lise & Jonathan
>>>>      - analysis of discussion document & further cooperation
>>>> 3. Legal advice update
>>>>      - input from Jones Day (Kevin Espinola)
>>>> 4. Update WP1 - Jordan 
>>>> 5. Update WP2 - Becky
>>>> 6. Update WP Stress tests
>>>>      - presentation of 2-3 stress tests for illustration
>>>> 7. Community engagement
>>>>      - engagement session logistics
>>>>      - other engagement ongoing during ICANN52
>>>> 8. AOB => Support staffing update by Theresa
>>>> 9. Closing remarks 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> -- 
>> *****************************
>> Mathieu WEILL
>> AFNIC - directeur général
>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>> *****************************
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150209/c2ce01ae/attachment.html>