[CWG-Stewardship] Interlinking and dependency between CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability

Fri Dec 12 09:12:23 UTC 2014

I agree with Malcolm.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
> On 10/12/2014 22:51, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> > All,
> >
> >
> >
> > A critical area that needs our attention is the interlinking and
> > dependency between the work of this group i.e. the Cross Community
> > Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the
> > related Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
> > (CCWG-Accountability).
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see attached for a document (copied into the body of the email
> > below) to get this discussion moving.
>
> Dear Jonathan and Lise,
>
> Thank you for this starting point.
>
> I think a key misunderstanding that those not involved in this CCWG
> might adopt is to assume that this CCWG has considered and addressed
> everything relevant to NTIA transition arising under the IANA Functions
> Contract.
>
> In fact, this CCWG has limited itself to consider those things arising
> under the IANA Functions Contract that pertain to IANA functions, and
> has not addressed those elements of the same contract that pertain to
> ICANN accountability. This CCWG understands that that is the
> responsibility of CCWG-Accountability.
>
> I would ask that your note on linkage include a statement making clear
> that we have not considered what the IANA Funcions Contract achieves for
> ICANN accountability, or how those elements should be replaced.
>
> It would be most unfortunate if CCWG-Accountability were to assume that
> anything in the IANA Functions contract must have been dealt with by
> this CCWG, and so was ineligible for consideration by CCWG-Accountability.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Malcolm Hutty.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thank-you,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
> >
> > Co-chairs
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Potential areas for interlinking and dependency between work of the
> > Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions
> > (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> > ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: 10 December 2014
> >
> >
> >
> > From: CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The linkage between the work of the CWG-Stewardship and the enhanced
> > accountability of ICANN has been recognised in a number of ways,
> > including explicitly by the CCWG-Accountability itself. Indeed, Work
> > Stream 1 of the CCWG-Accountability will focus on the mechanisms for
> > enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to
> > within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition.
> >
> >
> >
> > In an initial conversation between us (the co-chairs of the
> > CWG-Stewardship) and the co-chairs of the Drafting Team
> > <
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter+and+Drafting+Team>
> for
> > the CCWG-Accountability it was clear that input from the CWG-Stewardship
> > on matters for Work Stream 1 would be helpful. This document aims to
> > define those matters (derived from the draft transition proposal) and to
> > seek input from the CWG-Stewardship on these.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CWG-Stewardship published its draft transition proposal for names on
> > December 1^st 2014
> > (
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en.pdf
> ).
> >
> >
> >
> > This document contains three elements that may be specifically relevant
> > to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as follows:
> >
> > ·         *Section 3.3*– “*/Independent Review of Board Actions/*/– the
> > CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain
> > circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed/”. If
> > this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would
> > require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP.
> >
> > ·         *Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation
> > and re-delegation requests*. This is still under consideration by the
> > CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization
> > function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database
> > currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have
> > gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an
> > independent third party and its decision on these matters would be
> > binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the
> > ICANN Bylaws.
> >
> > ·         *Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel – *The
> > CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up
> > to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database.
> > Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a
> > proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of
> > the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this
> > would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws.**
> >
> > In addition to these elements the CWG in its public consultation has
> > requested input on an alternate ``ICANN only`` proposal that is being
> > considered by a number of participants in the CWG-Stewardship:
> >
> > /Input on a specific (ICANN) alternative solution/
> >
> > /The CWG is also seeking input on a specific alternative option which
> > has been raised within the CWG which envisages all NTIA responsibilities
> > being transferred to ICANN. This option would require an increase in
> > ICANN accountability to its constituent communities and require the
> > adoption of binding arbitration mechanisms (such recommendations may be
> > beyond the scope of the CWG and probably rest with the
> > CCWG-Accountability or other groups). Note that this integrated option
> > would impact the future ease or ability to tender for another IANA
> > Functions Operator (other than ICANN). However, to ensure there has been
> > a proper consideration of this option, the CWG, would appreciate input
> > from the community regarding support, or not, for this concept./
> >
> > / /
> >
> > If this solution were to go forward it would probably require
> > significant changes to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and therefore
> > the ICANN Bylaws to ensure that /e.g./ the ICANN Board could not
> > overrule the MRT in matters related to the performance of IANA Functions
> > or at the very least can be effectively sanctioned for doing so.
> >
> >
> >
> > For your convenience we have also attached a copy of the Introduction of
> > the CWG public consultation to this document as it covers all of these
> > points in greater detail (Annex 1).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141212/6208a80b/attachment-0001.html>