Dear Co-Chairs, I have noted that Legal Adviser has provided response to Sammantha Eisner, I did ask two sets of questions No reply is received for any of these two sets from Legal Adviser. However, some partial answer was given by two co-chairs while are highly appreciated a9 does not fully reply to the questions and b9 there is no formal legal view on that Pls kindly confirm that those questions are on the table for reply Regards Kavouss 2015-06-09 7:36 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Leon, Thank you very much for reply .But this is inconsistent with the objectives of work stream 1; " ACCOUNTABILITY TO BE IN PLACE OR COMMITTED BEFORE TRANSITION RTAKES PLACE " PARAMETERS/Protocols and Numbers are integral parts of INANA FUNCTIONS the stewardship of which is subject to transition? Why the accountability of these two aspects of transition is outside the mandate of CCWG.. If so Under whose mandate these accountabilty fall? Could I have the views of our legal adviser pls ? Kavouss With my best regards
2015-06-09 2:33 GMT+02:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx
:
Dear Kavouss,
Thank you for pointing this issue out. As per our Charter, IETF and CRISP related issues fall out of the CCWG’s scope. I quote the relevant part in our Charter:
Other groups’ (i.e. the numbers and protocol parameters communities, as outlined in the ICG Request for Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....>) proposals are intended to cover accountability issues related to the IANA Stewardship Transition, as well as issues already being considered by RIRs and IETF communities related in their respective areas in their engagement with ICANN. These issues are outside of scope of the CCWG-Accountability. The CCWG-Accountability will communicate with these groups to ensure that the CCWG-Accountability does not cover issues going beyond its scope.
Best regards,
León
El 08/06/2015, a las 16:04, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs Our chater relating to work Stream 1 indicates / referred to the accountability which must be in place or committed before transition takes place. In CCWG ,to gether with / inconsultation with CWG we have addressed accountability regarding Naming Community. However, regardinfg Parameters / Protocol and Numbers accountability nothing is mentioned. Accoring to IETF and CRISP they do not need any accountability ? WHICHIDOUBT I draw your attention to the PART OF THE latest views of IETF regarding transition : Quote
*" The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated agreement. They have drafted the update and from our perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step*." Unqiote It seems to me neither IETF not RIREs wish to have any commuinity empowerment in their activities .Please look at their proposals to ICG dated 06 and 15 January 2015 On the other hand Parameters / Protocol and Numbers like Naming require accountability from those implementing them My question to Lega Adviser is ,reading the proposals from IETF and RIREs to ICG, do they need to be accountable to the community or nor.We need to have a clwear advice on this Regards KAVOUSS