[CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies

[Greg Shatan]

Chuck, I share your concern, though it is abating somewhat. I think we
should continue to discuss and clarify what we need the CCWG to do, and
also its effect on our timeline.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Thanks Jonathan.  I confess to not being completely assured by the
> correspondence that the CCWG will do what we need but I guess we will just
> have to monitor their working on a continuing basis.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:41 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG-Stewardship accountability
> dependencies
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the delay in sharing this correspondence.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de <rickert at anwaelte.de>]
> *Sent:* 30 January 2015 20:03
> *To:* Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson
> *Cc:* Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> *Subject:* CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies
>
>
>
> Dear Lise and Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January.  It was
> helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided
> of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was
> informative and showed we are working in the same direction.
>
> We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship
> accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that
> discussion follows.  You can also find details of the sessions, including
> staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki at
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500
>
> and at
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+%234+--+Action+items+for+initiating+WS1+and+preparation+for+Singapore
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Session+#4+--+Action+items+for+initiating+WS1+and+preparation+for+Singapore>
> .
>
>
>
> We first presented your letter to the group and then, at the end of the
> meeting, came back to that point and discussed our response.
>
>
>
>
>
> • Budget Accountability and Transparency
> While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with
> regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically
> address the IANA budget at a level of detail the CWG is likely to ask for.
> Therefore, we encourage the CWG to recommend
> measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget and we will
> support requests for increased transparency.
>
> • Accountability for (re)delegations
> As you can see from the transcript, the CCWG has extensively discussed
> this point, particularly to ensure the demarcation between the remits of
> the CCWG and the CWG is well understood. This relates especially to the
> sensitivities of ccTLD Registries related to (re)delegations and we would
> like to stress that we understand that the role of the ICANN Board with
> respect to (re)delegations should not go beyond its current role. Also,
> there is no intention by the CCWG to give an accountability mechanism
> decision-making powers relating to the (re)delegation of ccTLDs.
>
> Notwithstanding the above and to the extent that the Board may take future
> decisions in this area, the CCWG intends to recommend accountability
> mechanisms that will be relevant.
> In any event, we expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration
> process for Board as well as management/staff decisions.
>
>
> • Independent Review of Board Actions
> CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the
> independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very
> much in tune with CWG approach.
>
>
> • Independent Appeals Panel
> We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we
> aligned in our thinking/approach, but the CCWG is cognizant of the fact
> that the CWG might need to explore its own mechanisms .
>
>
> • Control over ICANN Board decisions.
> When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had
> not had chance to review before the meeting.  The CCWG is now considering
> options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions.  We are very
> aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature
> of the ICANN policy decision-making process.  Community oversight of Board
> decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific
> decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to
> make a decision in the case of inaction.
>
>
> This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the
> coming weeks.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mathieu Weill, León Sánchez, Thomas Rickert
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150203/557c98ff/attachment.html>