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

Wed Jan 7 19:49:32 UTC 2015

Greg, Matthew and Robin, 
thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns. 

Firstly, the sentence you make reference to relates to the mechanisms mentioned in the first sentence of statement 1, i.e. independent mechsnisms enabling....

However, I am more than happy to include the suggested clarification.

Secondly, I do not see the issue with the Charters. The CWG has asked us for input and it is our suggestion to respond to them that the independent mechanism we are considering _could_ also be used for the needs of the CWG, i.e. IANA related issues. 
Let us assume that we would recommend the creation of a "review panel" (just for the sake of giving an example). We would then need to specify what decisions such review panel can take, i.e. we would need to define responsibilities / scope. We would list the items or areas of concern arising from the issues we are chartered with, i.e. we would recommend an accountability mechanism well within our Charter. 
The message we intend to send here is that the CWG (unless it advises otherwise) can also use this review panel (to stay with the the example) and add IANA related issues to the list of responsibilities of the review panel. 
This is optional for them as we cannot prescribe what they will suggest. If they chose, however, to pick up the idea, they could build on our suggestion. 

We could amend the sentence as follows:

> Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED 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.

I hope this helps clarify the issue. 

Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key.

Thanks,
Thomas

--
thomas-rickert.tel

> Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
> 
> 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 list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ee97824a/attachment.html>