[CCWG-ACCT] TR: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG Accountability

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Sun Mar 6 10:15:16 UTC 2016

FYI, this letter was sent in accordance with our discussions on Friday.



De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill at afnic.fr]
Envoyé : dimanche 6 mars 2016 10:15
À : 'James M. Bladel'; 'Thomas Schneider'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Byron
Holland'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar at lacnic.net
Cc : 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía';
'Thomas Rickert'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Fadi Chehade';
'Steve Crocker'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart
Boswinkel'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'David Olive';
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org; 'Carlos Reyes'; 'Julia Charvolen';
'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Julie Hedlund'
Objet : Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG Accountability

Dear Chartering Organizations,

Since sending you our Work Stream 1 report on 23 February, we have started
discussions around Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for
Work Stream 2. In fact, this was the particular focus of our Face-to-Face
meeting on Friday, 4 March, and will also be the focus of our working
session on Thursday morning.

Implementation oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter,
but it is the CCWG-Accountability’s view that the group’s role in
implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the
Work Stream 1 report, and furthermore to provide input on the
implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation,
or, if, and when necessary to bring the work back in line with the intent
of the Work Stream 1 report.

Since we expect the CCWG-Accountability to continue in its current form to
work through Work Stream 2, the most logical option is to have the working
group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor
the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this
responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering
Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the
Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed
without this specific remit.

We note that, as an example of precedence, while the CWG-Stewardship Final
Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained
active and therefore available when needed to answer questions from the
ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies, and to coordinate
with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA
intellectual property rights.

As the CCWG-Accountability Charter does not specifically address
implementation, we would like to ensure that the CCWG-Accountability’s
proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with
the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role
of the CCWG-Accountability. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the
implementation work as described above unless there are objections from
one or more Chartering Organizations.

We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open
to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals
with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the
CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. We will put out a call for
volunteers as we frame Work Stream 2 areas. Finally, we are conscious of
the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed
members, and we would like to offer that Chartering Organizations use this
interim phase to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new
replacement members if necessary.

Thank you for your consideration,

Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160306/e73c18d6/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list