[Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Accountability

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Tue Dec 16 08:22:23 UTC 2014

I agree with Joe and others that
- the ICG has taken note that the ICANN Board will transmit the final Transition Plan to NTIA without changing anything in it;
- naturally, the ICANN Board can comment the Plan proposed by ICG, e.g. in a letter to NTIA.

This is the suggestion I had made IN A PRIVATE CAPACITY, early on, to members of the ICANN Board and also during and ICG meeting, as a possible solution to the then conflicting views expressed in ICANN ("The Board has the right to change the content") and in the ICG ("the Plan should be forwarded by the Board without any change").


----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>, accountability-cross-community at icann.org, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Envoyé: Dimanche 14 Décembre 2014 22:39:11
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship]  CCWG Accountability

I think all we can do is to assure that they don't change our submission, which seems agreed, anyone has the ability to comment on our submission and we cannot prevent that.... 


Sent from my iPad 

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com > wrote: 

Dear All, 
In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability 
whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA 
In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case. 
I am worried about that. 
I mentioned that in virtual meeting to all CCWG 

2014-12-14 17:49 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck < cgomes at verisign.com > : 


I totally agree with you that this will have to be discussed. 


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of WUKnoben 
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:20 AM 
To: Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith 
Cc: ICG; cwg-stewardship at icann.org ; accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability 

I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. 

The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make reference that 


Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of the CWG-Stewardship 


What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. 

I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various groups’ leaderships. 

Best regards 


From: Kavouss Arasteh 

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM 

To: Drazek, Keith 

Cc: accountability-ccg-members at icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup at icann.org ; ICG 

Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability 


Thank you very much for your message. 

I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should meet and match with time lines that ICG established. 

What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG workstream 1. 

Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. 

tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed down to collection of information from the past expereince and not addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism of ICANN . 

We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and reality. 

By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request 



2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith < kdrazek at verisign.com >: 

I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 

Hi Kavouss, 

As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s representation in the CCWG. 

As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting transcript: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. 

If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. 



On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com > wrote: 

Dear All, 

I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . 

However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). 

This is not fair nor acceptable 

I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. 

We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute 



Internal-cg mailing list 
Internal-cg at icann..org 

Internal-cg mailing list 
Internal-cg at icann..org 

Internal-cg mailing list 
Internal-cg at icann.org 

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list