[CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship

[Greg Shatan]

Matthew,

Thanks for calling out that sentence.  Assuming "such mechanisms"
means "independent
mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions
from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is
considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing
slightly for clarity) is:

Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are
directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent
mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of
Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.

This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement.  It appears
to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG,  The CWG Charter
states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e.,
implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within
the scope of this working group."  The CCWG Charter states "Accountability
for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and
operational accountability) is not within the scope of the
CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.

This creates an awkward situation on several levels:

Can this action be reconciled with the Charters?  In other words, does
"implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of
the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA
functions"?
If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both
group's scope without amending the Charters?
Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG
objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?

IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's
WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions
directly related to IANA functions.  Does this mean that the CWG is ceding
its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any
such accountability must await the CCWG's work?  Or does this mean that the
CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and
contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms?  Or should the CWG object?

How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by
the CWG in its Draft Proposal?  Should this be limited to appeals of IANA
action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA
action/inaction?  Is this a sensible dividing line?

What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate?
Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the
model contemplated in the Charter?

Very interesting.

Greg Shatan






On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Thank Grace
>
> I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
>
> *Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are
> directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such
> mechanisms.*
>
> Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence
> as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
>
>  “The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need
> in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) *and will **keep the CWG stewardship apprised
> of any potential IANA-related implications.*”
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>  Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs
> plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
>
>  Best,
> Grace
>
>  From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
>
>   Dear all,
>
>
>
> The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG
> ACCT Call on 06 January are available here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
>
>
>
> ·       *Action Item: Co-Chairs
> will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting*
>
> *·       *
> *Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document.  Proposed edits are welcome.  Goal to develop a common view on *
>
>
> *scoping.  Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting.  Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
>
> ·
> *Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
>
>
>
> The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Brenda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/e39c60f5/attachment.html>