[CCWG-ACCT] Comments before May 18 - Draft CCWG co-chair submission to CWG public comment

Fri May 15 14:24:45 UTC 2015

Dear Eberhard,

Since the correspondence is on behalf of the co chairs, and based on the 
interim draft proposals, that would not be subject to a consensus call.

However, we welcome input on the draft if members of the group would 
suggest amendments.

Best
Mathieu

Le 15/05/2015 15:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
> Dear Co-Chairs.
>
> would that be subject to a Consensus Call?
>
> el
>
> -- 
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 13:47, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr 
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> As you know, the CWG-Stewardship 2nd public comment is open until May 
>> 20th 
>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en). 
>> Since this report lays out some dependencies between the proposals of 
>> the CWG and our group's, we decided during our CCWG call on May 5th 
>> to prepare a CCWG submission to this public comment period.
>>
>> Below is a draft CCWG submission, which would be sent on behalf of 
>> the co-chairs. Substance is based on our initial draft proposal. 
>> Please share your feedbacks before Monday 18 May to enable 
>> finalization of the submission in a timeframe consistent with the CWG 
>> public comment period.
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
>>
>>
>> ---------
>> Dear CWG-Stewardship co-chairs,
>>
>> This submission is in response to your group's 2nd draft proposal, 
>> open for public comment on 22 April 2015. We submit these comments as 
>> co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN 
>> Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), based on the proposed 
>> accountability enhancements recently published by our group 
>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en), 
>> and open to public comment.
>>
>> First, we would like to underline the quality of the ongoing 
>> coordination between co-chairs of our respective groups.  We have 
>> enjoyed regular and effective discussions since the launch of our 
>> group in December 2014. Our groups have been updated regularly about 
>> progress made as well as issues faced, and the interdependency and 
>> interrelation between our work has led to key correspondence being 
>> exchanges on a regular basis. As CCWG-Accountability co-chairs, we 
>> have been provided with the opportunity to speak with the 
>> CWG-Stewardship on two occasions, and you also introduced the key 
>> elements of your 2nd draft proposal to the CCWG-Accountability.
>>
>> As outlined in your public comment announcement "the 
>> CWG-Stewardship's proposal has dependencies on and is expressly 
>> conditioned upon the CCWG-Accountability process." Overall, it is our 
>> understanding that the CCWG-Accountability's initial proposals meet 
>> the CWG-Stewardship expectations. We would like to stress that, 
>> within our group's deliberations, the willingness to meet these 
>> requirements have been uncontroversial.
>>
>> Our comments will focus on the specific requirements that you outline :
>> •    Ability for the community to have more rights regarding the 
>> development and consideration of the ICANN budget;
>> The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals address this requirement 
>> directly in Section 5.2, which introduces a new power for the 
>> community to "consider strategic & operating plans and budgets after 
>> they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and 
>> reject them based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, 
>> Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global 
>> public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability 
>> or other matters of concern to the community."
>>
>> •    Empowering the multistakeholder community to have certain rights 
>> with respect to the ICANN Board, including the ICANN Board's 
>> oversight of the IANA operations, specifically, the ability to 
>> appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board, and to recall the 
>> entire Board;
>> The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals introduce new powers for 
>> the community, which include the ability to remove individual 
>> Directors (section 5.5) or recall the entire Board (section 5.6). 
>> These proposals would address the CWG-Stewardship requirement.
>>
>> •    The IANA Function Review, created to conduct periodic and 
>> special reviews of the IANA Functions, should be incorporated into 
>> the ICANN bylaws;
>> The CCWG-Accountability proposes to incorporate the review system 
>> defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws, 
>> including the ability to start new reviews (section 6.2, page 60). 
>> Based on your group's proposal, the CCWG introduced a recommendation 
>> to create a new review, based on the requirements you set forth.
>>
>> •    The CSC, created to monitor the performance of the IANA 
>> Functions and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO, 
>> should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws.
>> While this specific requirement was not addressed by the 
>> CCWG-Accountability, it would not contradict any of our proposals. It 
>> might be more appropriate if this recommendation was drafted and 
>> specified directly as one of the CWG-Stewardship recommendations.
>>
>> •    As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the 
>> CCWG-Accountability should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation 
>> issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community 
>> through the appropriate processes.”
>> When addressing enhancements to review and appeal mechanisms (both in 
>> sections 4.1 - IRP and 4.2 Reconsideration process), the 
>> CCWG-Accountability initial proposals  state that "as requested by 
>> the CWG-Stewardship, decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or 
>> revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal 
>> mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in 
>> coordination with other interested parties."
>>
>> •    All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the 
>> ICANN bylaws as "fundamental bylaws" requiring community ascent in 
>> order for amendment.
>> The CCWG Accountability initial proposals describe the scope of the 
>> "fundamental bylaws" in section 3.2.4. It is proposed that the 
>> "Reviews that are part of the CWG-Stewardship’s work – the IANA 
>> Function Review and any others they may require, as well as the 
>> creation of a Customer Standing Committee" would be considered 
>> Fundamental Bylaws. As such, any change of such Bylaws would require 
>> prior approval by the community.
>>
>> In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our deep appreciation of 
>> the outstanding work the CWG-Stewardship has conducted and our 
>> confidence that our respective groups' interdependence will be 
>> resolved to the satisfaction of stakeholder needs and expectations. 
>> We remain committed to closely coordinating on any further evolution 
>> of your requirements based on this 2nd round of public comment.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *****************************
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150515/d364e5fd/attachment.html>