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

Mon May 18 14:45:28 UTC 2015

I can bring this up within the CWG (as I am a member of the CWG) tomorrow
in our meeting or on the CWG list.  I do agree with Kavouss -- PTI will be
a separate entity and therefore will need to have a more granular budget by
definition.  How that translates into budget oversight and review still
needs to be clarified.

Greg

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

>  I agree with Jordan that this is an area of potential gap (or overlap)
> between the two groups.
>
>
>
> I think the CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the
> IANA-specific budget review. It could be made a component of the bigger
> review, but that would require coordination between the two groups.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan
> Carter
> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 8:49 PM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments before May 18 - Draft CCWG co-chair
> submission to CWG public comment
>
>
>
> hi Mathieu, all:
>
>
>
> I sense a bit of a gap between what we have proposed in respect of the
> budget powers, and what the CWG has asked for.
>
>
>
> May I suggest that we directly ask whether the overall budget process
> proposed in our first public comment really meets the needs set out by the
> CWG? After all, they have said detail down to project level or greater is
> required for the IANA budget, but we have not made any statements about how
> much detail we expect.
>
>
>
> Our budget is also a very blunt one - it is to send back the whole budget,
> not to have focused community input and changes into the IANA budget itself.
>
>
>
> The question I think this raises is: do we, or the CWG, need to design a
> specific, different process about the IANA budget?
>
>
>
> I don't have a view about the answer but I think it's a question we should
> put to the CWG.
>
>
>
> bests
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 23:47, Mathieu Weill <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150518/d49f42ff/attachment.html>