[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Fri Oct 30 12:15:37 UTC 2015

Hello Avri,

Well at times one may need to help keep the CCWG focused. I am sure you
followed the recent CCWG discussions about transparency in WS1.

However, owning to the recent post by one of the CCWG Co-Chairs, I can say
they seem to be helping the team remain focused.

As per numbers and protocol, you are right about the fact that the
efficiency that numbers/protocol community applied in developing their
proposal seem not to be a plus for the transition since NTIA requires a
whole proposal to include names.

As per their decision to remain with ICANN, I guess that is owned to the
fact that ICANN has meet up with their respective SLA as IFO. The current
happenings is not handwork of ICANN org but ICANN community and I expect
the 2 OCs to be fine so long as its not envisaged to affect their
respective IANA operation. The question that may need to be answered in
near future is whether the names proposal and accountability mechanism
will/has impacted IANA operation negatively.

Cheers!
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Oct 2015 12:47, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Do you really think that siiting behind their shoulder saying "hurry up,
> hurry up" is going to help?
>
> And as far as I can tell you are involved as am I and many others.
>
> I think that CCWG knows what its priorities are, to make sure that we
> have a sufficient accountability system in place to replace the forcing
> function of a NTIA Request for Bid for the IANA function will/would be.
> That includes the CWG requests, but is not restricted to those requests.
>
> The Numbers and Protocols people have long been eager to move ahead
> without the Names community.  However, since they want to stay with
> ICANN, I do not see where they are going without us.  Who knows, maybe
> someday in the future they will even end up grateful for a more
> accountable ICANN.
>
> avri
>
> On 30-Oct-15 05:37, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
> > Just incase someone on this list has not seen this (which is unlikely).
> >
> > Now that ICG is "done" Does the CWG need to formerly remind the CCWG
> > on the need for them to finalise on her dependencies in a timely manner.
> >
> > Do we(CWG) need to intensify collaboration with the CCWG in order to
> > speed up the processes by confirming dependencies requirements even
> > before completing the 3rd report of the CCWG?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
> > Date: 30 Oct 2015 08:19
> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of
> > CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
> > To: "Accountability Cross Community"
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> > Cc:
> >
> >
> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg-on-enhancing-icann-accountability/
> >
> >     ---
> >
> >     ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing
> >     ICANN Accountability
> >
> >     IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal:
> >
> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf
> >
> >     The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group has finalized
> >     the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one
> >     outstanding item. The names portion of the proposal is conditioned
> >     on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under
> >     development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> >     ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the
> >     NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will secure confirmation from
> >     the CWG that its accountability requirements have been met.
> >
> >     The ICG would like to thank all those who submitted public
> >     comments during the ICG’s public comment period. The ICG discussed
> >     this input and incorporated it into the current proposal as
> >     appropriate. As a result, matters relating to the dependency
> >     between the CWG and the CCWG, the Post-Transition IANA, the Root
> >     Zone Maintainer, the jurisdiction of ICANN, intellectual property
> >     related to IANA, and conformance with the NTIA criteria, among
> >     other matters, have been clarified.
> >
> >     The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are
> >     complete, ready for implementation, and have no dependencies on
> >     the work of the CCWG or other remaining processes. Preparation for
> >     implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals is
> >     underway and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete
> >     its work.
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151030/8b0dde52/attachment.html>